I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Environment and Community Committee will be held on:

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Tuesday, 4 December 2018

9.30am

Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

 

Komiti Taiao ā-Hapori Hoki /

Environment and Community Committee

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Cr Penny Hulse

 

Deputy Chairperson

Cr Alf Filipaina

 

Members

Cr Josephine Bartley

Cr Mike Lee

 

IMSB Member Renata Blair

Cr Daniel Newman, JP

 

IMSB Member James Brown

Cr Greg Sayers

 

Cr Dr Cathy Casey

Cr Desley Simpson, JP

 

Deputy Mayor Cr Bill Cashmore

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM

 

Cr Ross Clow

Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE

 

Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins

Cr Wayne Walker

 

Cr Linda Cooper, JP

Cr John Watson

 

Cr Chris Darby

Cr Paul Young

 

Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO

 

 

Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP

 

 

Cr Richard Hills

 

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

 

Maea Petherick

Senior Governance Advisor

 

29 November 2018

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8136

Email: maea.petherick@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

Terms of Reference

 

Responsibilities

This committee deals with all strategy and policy decision-making that is not the responsibility of another committee or the Governing Body.  Key responsibilities include:

·         Development and monitoring of strategy, policy and action plans associated with environmental, social, economic and cultural activities

·         Natural heritage

·         Parks and reserves

·         Economic development

·         Protection and restoration of Auckland’s ecological health

·         Climate change

·         The Southern Initiative

·         Waste minimisation

·         Libraries

·         Acquisition of property relating to the committee’s responsibilities and within approved annual budgets

·         Performing the delegations made by the Governing Body to the former Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum and Regional Development and Operations Committee, under resolution GB/2012/157 in relation to dogs

·         Activities of the following CCOs:

o    ATEED

o    RFA

Powers

(i)         All powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities, including:

(a)        approval of a submission to an external body

(b)        establishment of working parties or steering groups.

(ii)         The committee has the powers to perform the responsibilities of another committee,    where it is necessary to make a decision prior to the next meeting of that other committee.

(iii)        The committee does not have:

(a)        the power to establish subcommittees

(b)        powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (section 2)


Exclusion of the public – who needs to leave the meeting

Members of the public

All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution is passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.

Those who are not members of the public

General principles

·         Access to confidential information is managed on a “need to know” basis where access to the information is required in order for a person to perform their role.

·         Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role.

·         Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item and must leave the room for any other confidential items.

·         In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.

 

Members of the meeting

·         The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if the meeting is a Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee meeting).

·         However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of interest leave the room.

·         All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are not members of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders.

 

Independent Māori Statutory Board

·         Members of the Independent Māori Statutory Board who are appointed members of the committee remain.

·         Independent Māori Statutory Board members and staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.

 

Staff

·         All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.

·         Other staff who need to because of their role may remain.

 

Local Board members

·         Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to perform their role may remain.  This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board area.

 

Council Controlled Organisations

·         Representatives of a Council Controlled Organisation can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the Council Controlled Organisation

 

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                         PAGE

1          Apologies                                                                                                                        7

2          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   7

3          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               7

4          Petitions                                                                                                                          7  

5          Public Input                                                                                                                    7

5.1     Be A Tidy Kiwi and the behaviour change programme                                   7

5.2     Public Input: Keith Maddison - regarding Ponsonby Park, 254 Ponsonby Road, Ponsonby                                                                                                              8

5.3     Claudia (Boopsie) Maran - regarding Ponsonby Park, 254 Ponsonby Road, Ponsonby                                                                                                              8

6          Local Board Input                                                                                                          8

6.1     Local Board Input: Manukau Harbour Forum - presentation                          9

6.2     Local board Input - Waitemata Local Board regarding its One Local Initiative - Ponsonby Park, 254 Ponsonby Road, Ponsonby                                             9

7          Extraordinary Business                                                                                              10

8          Optimal size of the civic space at 254 Ponsonby Road                                          11

9          Approval of the Auckland Water Strategy discussion document for public consultation                                                                                                                  23

10        Strategic Approach to Sediment                                                                                69

11        Auckland Climate Action Plan                                                                                    87

12        I am Auckland Implementation Plan and Evaluation Framework                          95

13        Draft Sports Investment Plan                                                                                   159

14        Adoption of Facility Partnerships Policy                                                                165

15        Reserve Revocation - Council- owned lands adjoining 18 Edwin Freeman Place, Ranui and 18 Parrs Cross Road, Henderson                                                         267

16        2018/2019 Regional Environmental and Natural Heritage Grant Programme allocation                                                                                                                    281

17        2018/2019 Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund and Section 17a waste fund review update                                                                                                             325

18        Summary of Environment and Community Committee information - updates, memos and briefings - 4 December 2018                                                               345  

19        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

20        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                               357

C1       Approval of the 2018/2019 Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund grants for the September 2018 funding round                                                                               357

C2       Acquisition of land for open space - Mount Eden                                                 357

C3       Acquisition of land for open space - Silverdale                                                     358  

 


1          Apologies

 

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

 

 

2          Declaration of Interest

 

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

 

 

3          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 13 November 2018, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

 

 

4          Petitions

 

At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.

 

 

5          Public Input

 

Standing Order 7.7 provides for Public Input.  Applications to speak must be made to the Governance Advisor, in writing, no later than one (1) clear working day prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter.  The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.  A maximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking time for each speaker.

 

5.1       Be A Tidy Kiwi and the behaviour change programme

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       Keep Auckland Beautiful and the Auckland Litter Prevention Steering group will provide a presentation to the committee about the relaunch of “Be A Tidy Kiwi”, the behaviour change programme that they’ve initiated and the partnership with Ministry of Environment (MfE) for Litter Less Recycle More.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a)      thank Keep Auckland Beautiful and the Auckland Litter Prevention Steering Group for their presentation and attendance.

 

 


 

 

5.2       Public Input: Keith Maddison - regarding Ponsonby Park, 254 Ponsonby Road, Ponsonby

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       Keith Maddison, Community Led Design Group will address the committee regarding the Waitemata Local Board’s One Local Initiative (OLI) project at 254 Ponsonby Road also known as Ponsonby Park.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a)      thank Keith Maddison for the presentation regarding the Waitemata Local Board’s One Local Initiative project at 254 Ponsonby Road and thank him for his attendance.

 

 

 

5.3       Claudia (Boopsie) Maran - regarding Ponsonby Park, 254 Ponsonby Road, Ponsonby

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       Claudia (Boopsie) Maran will address the committee regarding the Waitemata Local Board’s One Local Initiative (OLI) project at 254 Ponsonby Road also known as Ponsonby Park.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a)      thank Claudia (Boopsie) Maran for the presentation regarding the Waitemata Local Board One Local Initiative project at 245 Ponsonby Road and thank her for her attendance.

 

 

 

6          Local Board Input

 

Standing Order 6.2 provides for Local Board Input.  The Chairperson (or nominee of that Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time.  The Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical, give one (1) day’s notice of their wish to speak.  The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.

 

This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 6.1 to speak to matters on the agenda.


 

 

 

6.1       Local Board Input: Manukau Harbour Forum - presentation

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To present the Small Sites Ambassador report prepared by Ridley Dunphy Environmental Ltd.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       At its meeting held on 19 October 2018 the Manukau Harbour Forum considered the report prepared by Ridley Dunphy Environmental Ltd.

3.       The report is available on the Auckland Council website for your information.

4.       The forum resolved as follows:

Resolution number MHFJC/2018/31

That the Manukau Harbour Forum:

a)     receive the Small Sites Ambassador report prepared by Ridley Dunphy Environmental Limited.

b)     request that the report be forwarded to the Environmental and Community Committee, and Regulatory Committee for their information.

c)     request that the forum present to these committees.

5.       Members of the Manukau Harbour Forum will be presenting the report.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a)      receive the presentation and thank the Manukau Harbour Forum for their attendance.

 

 

 

 

6.2       Local board Input - Waitemata Local Board regarding its One Local Initiative - Ponsonby Park, 254 Ponsonby Road, Ponsonby

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       The Waitemata Local Board will address the committee in relation to 254 Ponsonby Road, Ponsonby also known as Ponsonby Park.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a)      receive and note the input presentation from the Waitemata Local Board regarding it’s One Local Initiative – Ponsonby Park, 254 Ponsonby Road, Ponsonby.

 

 

 


 

 

7          Extraordinary Business

 

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

 

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

 

(a)        The local  authority by resolution so decides; and

 

(b)        The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

 

(i)         The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

 

(ii)        The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

 

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

 

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

 

(a)        That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

 

(i)         That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

 

(ii)        the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

 

(b)        no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

 

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 

Optimal size of the civic space at 254 Ponsonby Road

 

File No.: CP2018/22169

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To seek a decision on the optimal size of the civic space at 254 Ponsonby Road.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       To enable decision-making on the size of a proposed civic space at 254 Ponsonby Road, staff identified three options:

·     option one: develop 2000m2 on the front of the site as civic space and dispose of 326m2 at the rear to offset the initial acquisition cost (status quo)

·     option two: retain the whole site (2326m2) as civic space and dispose of an alternative site to offset the initial acquisition cost

·     option three: retain the whole site (2326m2) as civic space with no associated disposal (preferred option).

3.       On balance, staff recommend option three. This civic space will help meet the recreational needs of local residents and neighbouring areas. While the proposed size slightly exceeds the council’s provision policy, this could be justified on the basis that:

·     the location, proposed design and amenity values align with all other aspects of the policy and respond directly to two Auckland Plan focus areas: Belonging and Participation & Homes and Places

·     the civic space could support local events and be used in conjunction with regional events such as the annual Pride and Saint Patrick’s Day parades

·     Ponsonby is a destination for a number of Aucklanders, so the civic space will service a wider catchment

·     there are high community expectations that the whole site will be developed.

4.       Supporting option three over the next preferred option (option two) entails a financial trade-off. If approved, council will not recoup some of the $7.7 million cost of acquiring 254 Ponsonby Road, or generate additional funding for the development of the civic space. This low financial risk is offset by 12-years of commercial rent generated on the property. There is a higher reputation risk if the site is not developed in the short-term and in line with community expectations.

5.       The next steps are to prepare a detailed business case and design in the 2019/2020 financial year.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a)      support the retention of the whole site located at 254 Ponsonby Road (2326m2), Ponsonby, currently held by Auckland Council in fee simple under the Local Government Act 2002, for the purpose of developing a civic space.

 


 

Horopaki / Context

Land was bought by Auckland City Council for an urban square

6.       The former Auckland City Council acquired 254 Ponsonby Road in 2006 for $7.7 million to create an urban square. This was conditional on the disposal of a portion of the land to offset the purchase.

7.       The resolution did not specify the size of the civic space, or the disposal area [Resolution C8/2006 refers]:

that the purchase price be offset by a sensible development of the rear portion of the site and proposals for this be reported back by the Property Enterprise Board”.

Implementation of the community-led design is a priority for the local board

8.       Since 2006 the site has been tenanted, delivering a commercial return to council, while various plans have been developed for the space (see Attachment A). Rental income over this period is estimated at $3.7 million.

9.       In 2015, the Waitematā Local Board initiated a community-led design process to identify a preferred concept for development of 254 Ponsonby Road. It allocated $10,000 of Local Development Initiative funding for this purpose.

10.     A final design was chosen by the community and endorsed by the local board in April 2017.

11.     The preferred design proposes the development of the full site as a civic space, re-use of existing buildings and structures as well as a village green.

12.     Development of 254 Ponsonby Road, in accordance with the preferred design, was then selected by the Waitematā Local Board as their One Local Initiative for funding as part of the Long-term Plan 2018-2028.

13.     The local board proposed the development of the civic space in two phases:

·     phase 1: $5.5 million - Deliver the essential elements of the civic space, including landscaping, repurposing the existing forecourt canopy structure to provide a space for markets and events, and installing new public toilet facilities (Long-term Plan funding)

·     phase 2: $5.5 million – Repurpose the existing buildings and make improvements to surrounding streetscape (partially funded through the council’s Service Property Optimisation Approach).

14.     Staff were requested to provide advice on the optimal size of the proposed civic space and to submit a report to the Environment and Community Committee.

15.     Without a new decision council is required to implement the Auckland City Council resolution. All resolutions of legacy councils are treated as if they were council’s own in accordance with the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009.

There is shared decision-making allocation for open space acquisition

16.     The decision-making allocation for council to acquire land for parks and open spaces is set out in the allocation of decision-making for non-regulatory activities in Volume Two of the Long-term Plan 2018-2028.

The Governing Body is responsible for:

·     the number and general location of all new parks and the prioritisation of major upgrades to existing parks (including sports fields within parks)

·     acquisition and divestment of all park land, including the disposal of surplus parks, excluding any disposal and reinvestment made in accordance with the Service Property Optimisation Approach.

Local boards are responsible for the specific location of new local parks and open spaces (including the prioritisation for acquisition), and for their subsequent design and development within budget parameters agreed with the Governing Body.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

17.     The proposed civic space responds to two Auckland Plan focus areas:

Belonging and Participation - Focus area 1

Create safe opportunities for people to meet, connect, participate in and enjoy community and civic life

Homes and Places - Focus area 5

Create urban places for the future.

The open space provision policy sets out the requirements for civic spaces

18.     The Open Space Provision Policy 2016 informs decision-making on the type, size and location of parks and open space.

19.     Civic spaces are a specific type of open space with a range of amenity values, including:

·     meeting and socialising opportunities

·     event space

·     landscaping and gardens

·     public artworks.

20.     The extent of the network and sizes of civic space should reflect the urban centres in which they are located.

21.     Ponsonby is defined as a ‘Town Centre’. It would be well served by one or more small civic spaces (<1000m2) and one medium civic space (1500m2 to 2000m2).

22.     Staff have undertaken an assessment of 254 Ponsonby Road against the policy (see Attachment B). The assessment concludes that:

·     there is a shortfall of civic space in Ponsonby

·     the retention of the site is a high priority as it would meet current and future community needs

·     the site and proposed community design can deliver the desired amenity values

·     development of the full site would exceed the policy provision target by 326m2 (see Figure 1 below).

Figure 1: Site location and size

 

There are a range of other factors to consider

23.     It is important to consider how the civic space will function. 254 Ponsonby Road will support small local events. It can also be used to support regional events such as the annual Pride and Saint Patrick’s Day parades.

24.     Ponsonby is a commercial and recreational destination for residents and visitors. This means that the civic space will serve a catchment beyond its local area.

25.     While there is limited growth projected in the immediate area, due to the Residential Single House zoning and Special Character Overlay, there is significant growth occurring nearby.

26.     Waitematā is one of the fastest-growing areas in Auckland. The population has increased by 6.7 percent since 2006. Further population and employment growth has the potential to impact on the use and enjoyment of the open space network.

27.     The following open spaces are near 254 Ponsonby Road:

·     Tole Street Reserve (1.2 hectares) within c.195 metres

·     Costley Reserve (0.5 hectares) within c.195 metres

·     Vermont Street Reserve (0.5 hectares) within c. 690 metres

·     Harry Dansey Reserve (0.7 hectares) within c. 690 metres

·     Western Park (7.3 hectares) within one kilometre

·     Victoria Park (9.4 hectares) within one kilometre.

28.     The presence of this open space does not provide a substitute for the amenity a civic space is intended to provide. It does, however, show the area is well-provisioned.

There are three options for decision-makers to consider

29.     Staff have identified three options for the size and location of the proposed civic space at 254 Ponsonby Road:

·     option one: develop 2000m2 on the front of the site as civic space and dispose of 326m2 at the rear to offset the initial acquisition cost (status quo)

·     option two: retain the whole site (2326m2) as civic space and dispose of an alternative site to offset the initial acquisition cost

·     option three: retain the whole site (2326m2) as civic space with no associated disposal (preferred option).

Option one: Develop 2000m2 on the front portion of the site as civic space and dispose of 326m2 at the rear to offset the initial acquisition cost (status quo)

30.     This entails developing a 2000m2 civic space. This is the maximum size of a medium civic space under the provision policy. The residual 326m2 back portion of the site would be subdivided creating a new residential lot.

31.     This option reflects the status quo under the legacy resolution.

32.     The benefit of this option is that the proceeds of disposal would offset the cost of acquisition. As an indication of possible value, the land values of adjacent residential properties (excluding improvements) range from $1.4 million to $1.5 million.

33.     These sale proceeds would be in addition to approximately $3.7 million in commercial rent accrued by council over the last 12 years.

34.     However, there would be a number of planning issues associated with the sub-division and development of a 326m2 section in this location. Such a small lot size would require a resource consent under the Unitary Plan. Any design would also need to align with its Special Character Overlay. Mimicking neighbouring properties could detract from the historic character, as could modern design.

Option two: Retain the whole site (2326m2) as civic space and dispose of an alternative site to offset the initial acquisition cost

35.     Council would develop the whole site as a civic space under this option.

36.     This represents minor over-provision (326m2), but it is expected that the additional space would be well utilised during any regional events.

37.     Council would also dispose of an alternative site to offset some of the $7.7 million cost of acquiring the land.

38.     This option would be in keeping with the decision of Auckland City Council.

39.     It would provide a financial return to council comparable to the sale of part of 254 Ponsonby Road; and would be in keeping with the legacy decision.

40.     It would deliver the civic space sought by the community.

41.     However, disposal of an alternative site would be a lengthy process and could delay the development of the civic space. There are set legislative processes to follow including community consultation.

42.     Delays to the project heighten reputational risk. The community has expected to see development of the civic space since 2006.

43.     There would also be reputational risks if two council assets were sold to fund the project.

Option three: Retain the whole site (2326m2) as civic space with no associated disposal

44.     Council would also develop the whole site as a civic space under this option, maximising utility for events as sought by the community.

45.     Council would not seek to dispose of any other asset, other than to help pay for phase two as planned.

46.     The main benefit of this option is that it could be implemented much faster than the other two options. It is not dependent on sub-division or property disposal processes.

47.     The option would not generate any financial return to offset the cost of development. However, there are sufficient funds allocated in the Long-term Plan 2018-2028.

48.     Council has also recovered a significant portion of the purchase price through commercial rent over the last 12-years.

1.         Staff have developed criteria to assess the three options

49.     Staff developed assessment criteria to enable the comparison of the options. These criteria are unweighted and allow for objective assessment:

·     strategic alignment

·     amenity values and functionality

·     maximising place-making and supporting community empowerment

·     value for money.

50.     The first criterion focuses on alignment with the provision targets and network principles in the Open Space Provision Policy and the Auckland Plan focus areas.

51.     The second considers the range of recreational opportunities that can be provided, including for some regional events.

52.     The third acknowledges the investment of the community and the quality of the process used to arrive at a preferred design.

53.     The fourth focuses on value for money. This includes financial returns in the form of rent and sale proceeds.

 

54.     A summary of the options against the assessment criteria is provided in Table 1 below.

         Table 1: Assessment of options against criteria

Criteria

Option one

Develop 2000m2 of the site and dispose of 326m2

Option two

Retain the whole site and dispose of an alternative site

Option three

Retain the whole site with no associated disposal

Strategic alignment

✓✓✓

✓✓

✓✓

Amenity and function

✓✓

✓✓✓

Place-making and community empowerment

✓✓

✓✓✓

Value for money

✓✓

✓✓✓

2.         Staff recommend option three

55.     When the criteria are applied, options two and three score highest.

56.     On balance staff recommend option three over option two.

57.     Option three had the lowest reputational risk to council. It is the easiest to implement meaning that the civic space could be developed in the short-term in line with community expectations. The financial return to council would be limited to the commercial rent generated from the site since 2006. This will not provide the largest financial return.

58.     Option two trades off the amenity and community values of another asset in exchange for an additional financial return. However, identifying a comparable site may be difficult. There could also be reputational issues if council was to sell another asset to fund phase two.

59.     Option one is least preferred. It aligns with the council’s provision metrics and would generate the financial return anticipated by the legacy resolution. However, it would be difficult to implement, and the civic space may not function well over the long-term. Obtaining land in this location again, if needed, would be extremely difficult and costly.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

60.     Development of the civic space will enhance amenity and recreational opportunities in Ponsonby. The community has anticipated the achievement of this outcome since 2006.

61.     Multiple rounds of public consultation have created a high degree of public engagement in the development of 254 Ponsonby Road. Public feedback has consistently found majority support for the provision of open space across the whole site.

62.     A community-led design process has then resulted in a high sense of local ownership of the proposed civic space design.

63.     Community aspirations from three separate rounds of public consultation include:

·     A space that would encourage and foster social connections

·     a place to sit and relax

·     an urban green space

·     a place to hold markets and events

·     a play space

·     an area to host public art

·     a place which demonstrates sustainable design.

 

64.     These align strongly with the council’s public amenity values and the Auckland Plan.

65.     The Waitematā Local Board has identified developing 254 Ponsonby Road in line with the community’s vision as a key priority in its 2017 Local Board Plan.

66.     The local board, at its meeting of 20 November 2018, resolved to [resolution WTM/2018/173 refers]:

“strongly support Option 3 and recommend to the Environment and Community Committee the retention of the whole site located at 254 Ponsonby Road (2326m2), Ponsonby, currently held by Auckland Council in fee simple under the Local Government Act 2002, for the purpose of developing a civic space.”

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

67.     Māori identity and well-being are an important outcome in the Auckland Plan. The development of the civic space should respond to the following focus area:

Focus area 7

Reflect mana whenua mātauranga and Māori design principles throughout Auckland

68.     Development proposals should also draw upon previous mana whenua consultation on the Ponsonby Road Master Plan. The following is a summary of the advice provided:

·    strong support for this site to be open space

·    a preference that the site contain play facilities

·    that Māori heritage and stories be highlighted at this site possibly through technology story boards or posts

·    that the proposed art gallery and exhibition space incorporates Māori art.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

69.     Options one and two entail the sale of assets, which could be expected to generate up to $1.5 million. This is in addition to the approximately $3.7 million in commercial rents that council has generated since acquisition.

70.     Long-term Plan 2018-2028 anticipated the disposal of a portion of 254 Ponsonby Road. These funds would be reinvested in the development of the civic space.

71.     There is sufficient One Local Initiative funding available for phase one of the project ($5.5 million) without asset sales.

72.     The local board propose to partially fund phase two ($5.5 million) through the council’s Service Property Optimisation Approach. It is currently working with Panuku to investigate options to sell another site in Ponsonby with an estimated value higher than the up to $1.5 million figure associated with option one or option two.

73.     Regardless of the option taken, there will be a budget shortfall to complete the whole $11 million two-phase project.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

74.     There is a low financial risk with the preferred option three. This is offset by the commercial rent generated.

75.     There is a much higher reputational risk if the site is not developed in the short-term and in line with community expectations.

76.     There is a low legal and regulatory compliance risk associated with all the possible options. This is because all entail some inconsistency with council policy.

77.     Retention of the entire site under options two of three would be inconsistent with the provision metrics of the Open Space Provision Policy. By contrast, the sub-division and development of a 326m2 section under option one would require a departure from Unitary Plan.

78.     These inconsistencies are not considered to be significant, and do not signal a need to amend the current policy or Unitary Plan.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

79.     Subject to the committee’s decision, the next steps in the development of 254 Ponsonby Road as a civic space are outlined in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Project timing

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

254 Ponsonby Road - Development Timeline

19

b

254 Ponsonby Road - Policy Assessment

21

      

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

William  Brydon - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Paul Marriott-Lloyd - Senior Policy Manager

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 

Approval of the Auckland Water Strategy discussion document for public consultation

 

File No.: CP2018/10343

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To approve the Auckland Water Strategy discussion document, ahead of public consultation from 17 February 2019 to 17 March 2019.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       Both freshwater and marine environments in Auckland are under pressure from historic under-investment, climate change and rapid growth. The Auckland Plan 2050 identifies the need to proactively adapt to a changing water future and develop long-term solutions.

3.       In response to these challenges, the Environment and Community Committee approved the scope of a strategy for Auckland’s waters at its June 2018 meeting (resolution ENV/2018/78). The strategy will provide strategic direction for the council group to meet the challenges and opportunities for improved management for water in all its forms. It will establish the outcomes needed for Auckland’s waters, as part of implementation of the Auckland Plan.

4.       Staff from across Auckland Council, Watercare and Auckland Transport have prepared an Auckland Water Strategy discussion document for public consultation (see Attachment A), which forms the first step in the strategy’s development. The purpose of this document is to both inform the public about the key issues for Auckland’s waters, and to receive public feedback on the proposed vision and topics for inclusion in the strategy.

5.       A comprehensive engagement programme has also commenced. This has included mana whenua engagement through the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum, as well as separate workshops with operational kaitiaki. Staff have also attended workshops with all 21 local boards, the governing body and subject matter experts to introduce key topics to be addressed in the strategy.

6.       This report requests the Environment and Community Committee’s approval of the Auckland Water Strategy discussion document, ahead of public consultation from 17 February 2019 to 17 March 2019 alongside the Annual Plan consultation.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendations

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a)      approve the Auckland Water Strategy discussion document for public consultation from 17 February 2019 to 17 March 2019 (Attachment A of the agenda report).

b)      delegate the Environment and Community Committee chair the ability to make minor amendments to the discussion document ahead of public consultation.

c)      note that a summary of public consultation feedback will be provided to the Environment and Community Committee in April 2019.

Horopaki / Context

Identifying the key issues in relation to Auckland’s waters

7.       The health of Auckland’s waters is a significant issue. Decades of pressure have had negative impacts on water quality, and on freshwater and marine environments. This pressure will continue to increase if changes are not made to the way that water is valued and managed. Population growth and climate change will further amplify the challenges, with greater demand for water services, and an increased risk of flooding and coastal inundation.

8.       The Auckland Plan notes a key challenge of ‘environmental degradation’ and identifies the need to proactively adapt to a changing water future and develop long-term solutions (focus area five of the Auckland Plan’s environment and cultural heritage outcome). Other focus areas of the Auckland Plan speak to the need to future-proof Auckland’s infrastructure, make sustainable choices, and fully account for past and future impacts of growth.

9.       This Committee agreed to the development of the Auckland Water Strategy at its 12 September 2017 meeting. The committee noted that water is often described and managed in categories, such as stormwater, wastewater and drinking water. An overarching strategy for Auckland’s waters, in all their forms, was identified as the best way of ensuring the full range of desired outcomes for water are defined and achieved in an integrated way.

10.     Several drivers give weight to the timely development of the strategy. These include heightened public awareness of water quality risks, and strong support from the public for improvements to water quality through the ten-year budget, central government initiatives (such as the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and the Department of Internal Affairs review of three waters outcomes) and the need to update existing strategies due to significant population growth. It also responds to mana whenua aspirations surrounding te mauri o te wai.

Engaging with local boards, mana whenua and key stakeholders

11.     Since the strategy’s initiation in September 2017, staff have undertaken preliminary analytical work and engagement across the council group. This includes resolving the intersection of the strategy with the section 17A three waters review, mapping the council group’s current water-related activities, and analysing the public feedback on the proposed Auckland Plan and 10-year budget.

12.     An extensive local board and mana whenua engagement programme has been undertaken. In September and October 2018, staff presented the proposed topics to be addressed through the water strategy at workshops with all 21 local boards. Formal feedback on the proposed topics for inclusion in the water strategy was also sought at local board business meetings throughout November 2018. Informal local board feedback has been summarised later in this report, and formal feedback received at the November 2018 local board meetings will be tabled at the 4 December 2018 Environment and Community Committee meeting for the committee’s consideration.

13.     Mana whenua have been engaged at both a governance and operational level. The Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum provided strategic direction while operational kaitiaki provided direction on the values. Subject matter experts from across the council group, local boards and the governing body have also provided feedback on the key topics.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

14.     The Auckland Water Strategy will provide strategic direction for the council group on how to meet the challenges and opportunities for improved water management. It is expected that the overarching strategy will define the approaches taken around water in other supportive strategies and plans as they are subsequently developed and reviewed.

15.     As the development of the strategy has progressed, it has become clear that it will need to be developed in stages. Many of the water challenges that have been identified require more analysis and public engagement before a strategy can be agreed. For this reason, the ‘discussion document’ proposed to be released for public consultation in early 2019 focuses on identifying and agreeing the water issues that Auckland faces within a proposed framework of vision, values and principles. From there, the governing body will be able to review and agree a staged programme that builds on the framework towards a final strategy.


 

 

Identifying topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy

16.     The topics included in this discussion document (see Attachment A) have been developed through the review of the existing policies and strategies, and through a series of workshops and discussions with staff from Auckland Council family, including Watercare and Auckland Transport, feedback received from 21 local boards and mana whenua.

17.     The discussion document proposes a framework for how we think and make decisions about water in Tāmaki Makaurau, which includes: 

·    an aspirational vision for Auckland’s water future

·    five values describing the reasons we attach importance to water

·    four key issues that are at the core of Auckland’s water challenge

·    six principles that will guide the council’s actions as we move forward

·    four processes that we need to work on to support quality decisions.

Proposing a vision for the Auckland Water Strategy

18.     The following vision guided by the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum is proposed as an aspirational statement of where Aucklanders would like to be by 2050: Te mauri o te wai o Tāmaki Makaurau – the life supporting capacity of Auckland’s waters – is protected and enhanced.  

19.     Te mauri o te wai has many layers. It is about the health of water but also about the deep connections between water, the environment and people.

20.     While Aucklanders will have different ideas as to how te mauri o te wai can be enhanced and protected, the development of an Auckland Water Strategy provides an opportunity to open this up for public discussion. It will help Aucklanders to recognise the consequences of actions across the whole water cycle. Te mauri o te wai is an aspirational statement to unify Auckland’s approach to water.

21.     While the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management speaks of ‘te mana o te wai’, te mauri o te wai is regarded as a better description of the aspiration that could unite Aucklanders. Waters with healthy mauri nourish us and allow us to meet our obligations to care for one another (manaakitanga). As mana whenua have observed, there can be no mana without mauri.

Why we love water - describing our values

22.     A value-based approach will help in connecting the council’s decisions back to what Aucklanders think matters most in relation to water. The proposed values for the Auckland Water Strategy will ensure the council is on track for delivering on the strategy’s vision:

·    ecosystems: healthy water systems nourish the natural environment

·    water use: we can meet our everyday water needs safely, reliably and efficiently

·    recreation and amenity: we enjoy being in, on and near the water

·    culture: water contributes to our identities and beliefs, as individuals and as part of communities

·    resilience: our water systems are resilient to changing conditions, and we are resilient to water hazards.


 

 

Addressing the big issues - what we need to work on

23.     Staff identified four key issues that are at the heart of Auckland’s water future, and work forward from the proposed vision and the five proposed values. These issues are:

·    cleaning up our waters

·    growth in the right places

·    meeting future water needs

·    adapting to a changing water future.

How we will work - applying a principles-based approach

24.     The following six principles are proposed to guide the council, as the four key issues as outlined above are addressed:

·    recognise that water is a treasure (taonga)

·    work with ecosystems

·    deliver catchment scale thinking and action

·    focus on achieving the right-sized solutions with multiple benefits

·    work together to plan and deliver better water quality outcomes

·    look to the future.

Working better - processes we need to work on

25.     There are four key processes that need to improve, to help in applying the principles above to the council’s work:

·    applying a Māori world view

·    creating our water future together

·    setting priorities for investment

·    achieving net benefits for catchments.

26.     This report seeks approval of the Auckland water strategy discussion document outlining these topics, ahead of public consultation from February to April 2019.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

27.     Local boards have a strong interest in improving water quality across the Auckland region and currently fund many local projects focused on restoration of local waterways.

28.     Staff attended a local board chairs’ meeting on 13 November 2017 to introduce the concept of the strategy and expected range of activities arising from the strategy. Board chairs indicated their interest in continued involvement.

29.     Staff presented the scope, summary and the progress on the strategy’s development to all 21 local boards between 30 August 2018 and 23 October 2018. Key themes in the feedback provided by local boards at these workshops included the need to:

·    acknowledge water as being a precious commodity that needs to be preserved as the population grows

·    increase the focus on the health of Auckland’s harbours

·    identify future drinking water sources

·    educate people around resilience, water usage, and the impacts of their activities on the environment

·    strengthen regulation and compliance to protect waterways.

30.     Formal feedback on the proposed topics of the discussion document was requested from local boards at their November 2018 business meetings. Due to the timing of this report, this feedback will be summarised and tabled at the 4 December 2018 Environment and Community Committee meeting for the committee’s consideration. Local board feedback will be incorporated where possible into the development of the strategy.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

31.     Mauri (life force) is a fundamental concept of the Māori world view. The state of mauri is an indicator of overall environmental, cultural and social wellbeing. All water sources have an inherent mauri that can be diminished or enhanced.

32.     Enhancing the mauri of waterways is of key significance to mana whenua in their role as kaitiaki of Auckland waters. Early engagement with mana whenua to promote kaitiakitanga and embed mana whenua values into this work is critical to the success of the actions outlined in this report.

33.     The development of the Auckland Water Strategy has been guided by the strategic advice provided by the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki governance forum. The forum has determined it will provide its own strategic advice, to ensure that core mana whenua principles and values are given the attention they need. The forum requested that one of their members be included on the governance group for the development of the strategy. This has been achieved with the Auckland Water Political Reference Group, and recognises the longstanding whakaaro and kōrero that mana whenua have provided on this kaupapa.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

34.     A budget of $500,000 to develop the Auckland Water Strategy was approved as part of the Long-term Plan 2018-2028. This budget covers operational expenses, primarily staff time, and will be used to support public engagement.

35.     The budget required to deliver any actions arising from the strategy will be sought through the Long-term Plan 2021-2031 process. 

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

36.     An initial risk assessment for the programme has been carried out, as shown in Table 1 below.     

Table 1 - Auckland Water Strategy work programme risks and proposed mitigations

Risk type

Risk description

Consequence description

Rating

(High-Medium-Low)

Mitigation or control

Scope expansion

Water is a broad subject, and the level of detail and number of topics to cover can grow and change rapidly

Unable to deliver to time and cost

Medium

Guidance from the Political Reference Group and Executive Steering Group

Central government changes to legislation and policy

There are several central government work programmes focusing on water underway such as the Department of Internal Affairs Three Waters review and the Office of the Auditor Generals Water Programme. The strategy will need to adapt to any changes in direction from central government

Unable to deliver to time and cost

Medium

Anticipate where possible, communication plans to include government stakeholders

Inconsistent practices and adoption of the strategy

The strategy is not adopted and reflected in the plans of the operational and delivery organisations of the council group

Outcomes of the strategy are not delivered, substantive actions to deliver the strategy are not undertaken

Medium

Ensure that the delivery teams of the council group are engaged in the development of the strategy

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

37.     The next steps in the development of the Auckland Water Strategy have been outlined in Table 2 below.

Table 2 - Timeframes for the development of the Auckland Water Strategy

Activity

Expected timeframe

Public consultation on the Auckland Water Strategy discussion document

17 February 2019 – 17 March 2019

Public engagement feedback presented to elected members

April 2019

Draft options for the finalisation of the Auckland Water Strategy, and associated work programmes to be presented to the Environment and Community Committee

June 2019

 


 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Auckland Water Strategy discussion document for public consultation

31

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Andrew Chin, Auckland Waters Portfolio Manager

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 

Strategic Approach to Sediment

 

File No.: CP2018/22522

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       For the Environment and Community Committee to endorse the strategic, cross-council approach to managing sediment in the Auckland region.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       Addressing sediment and the linked issue of improving erosion management are not new policy objectives either nationally or in Auckland. 

3.       Erosion is a complex process. Sediment entering waterways happens in different ways and comes from a variety of sources. Changes in land use and management in both rural and urban environments can significantly affect erosion rates and sediment entering freshwater and coastal systems. This has the potential to substantially and adversely impact their ecological, social, cultural and economic values.

4.       No single team or solution can resolve this complex issue alone. It requires the council group to work together with mana whenua, industry partners and other external stakeholders to encourage those who contribute to sediment problems to become part of, and share responsibility for, the solutions. Where appropriate, council will need to continue to strictly enforce regulation on those who breach the measures in place to reduce sediment.

5.       Examination since early 2018 has focused on a systemic analysis of Auckland’s sediment issues and resulted in six distinct but related work areas:

1)      Better information

2)      Strategy and Policy

3)      Interventions

4)      Monitoring and Evaluation

5)      Coordinating and Building Capacity

6)      Communication and Engagement.

6.       Together, this package of six work areas forms the proposed strategic approach to sediment. This approach is more comprehensively outlined in Attachment A.

7.       The outcomes and expected benefits from the proposed approach are:

·    drive a reversal of the environmental decline caused by sediment

·    recommend measures to address the prevention of sediment run-off

·    provide a definition of what needs to be monitored and how this can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of policies and interventions

·    recommend optimal coordination of all council resources in minimising the impacts of erosion and sediment

·    encourage those who contribute to sediment problems to become part of the solutions.

8.       The outputs from each work area have been mapped against part a) of Environment and Community Committee Resolution Reference ECC/2018/99, which requested a scoping report on options for an integrated, regional approach to reduce sedimentation of Auckland’s receiving environments. A clear alignment between the existing strategic programme and the resolution is demonstrated in Attachment A (Part F).

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a)      endorse the strategic approach to sediment, consisting of a framework and associated work areas, which builds on the collective resources across the council group.

b)      request a proposed implementation programme be brought to the Committee no later than June 2019, based on the momentum, direction and achievements made through 2018.

 

 

Horopaki / Context

A national issue

9.       Erosion rates in New Zealand are naturally among the highest in the world due to topography and soil type. Historic land use changes, particularly during the latter part of the 19th Century, resulted in a sudden increase in erosion and sediment entering fresh and marine waters. 

10.     Legislation and subsequent policy developments in the early 20th Century, focused primarily on erosion management to:

·        reduce flood hazard risks and vulnerability

·        retaining land productivity

·        address municipal water supply concerns.

11.     The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) introduced a major shift in policy to provide for environmental values through managing sediment and erosion. However, the challenges of erosion and sediment continue both nationally and regionally. 

12.     Ongoing national concerns are reflected in central government’s current policy development related to ecosystem health degradation and biodiversity losses, through the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management (NPS-FM) and the recently announced ‘Essential Freshwater’ package (October 2018). The latter includes the likely introduction of a formal sediment attribute parameter in the NPS-FM in 2019. This will set national standards for the management of sediment which have to be met. The council already seeks to address this through changes to the Unitary Plan and other responses. Staff are also contributing to central government policy development and other related initiatives, such as the ‘At Risk Catchments’ project.

The challenge for Auckland

13.     Auckland is anticipated to grow significantly over the next 30 years, with a projected requirement for another 313,000 dwellings. The core urbanised area of the city covers just over ten per cent (approximately 50,550 hectares) of the region’s 489,363 hectares. Providing for growth will increase Auckland’s urban footprint by around 18 per cent. This includes significant redevelopment and intensification in brownfields and newly established communities in future urban areas (Auckland Development Strategy, 2018).

14.     The Auckland Plan 2050 provides a framework for the strategic coordination of issues and opportunities for the region. The plan recognises Auckland’s key challenges of population growth, shared prosperity, as well as arresting and reversing environmental degradation. It also identifies urban development and climate change as two specific issues that will continue to have the greatest impact on Auckland’s environment; both are major contributors to the ongoing sediment story through changes in land use and climate conditions.

15.     Responses signalled in the plan include using growth to leverage environmental enhancement:

·        ensuring our infrastructure responses are resilient

·        adapting to a changing water future.

16.     The plan, and therefore this strategic approach to sediment, requires a step change in approach to these challenges to ensure that environmental degradation is not accepted as an inevitable consequence of population growth and urban development. 

17.     A further challenge is to ensure that existing high levels of historic sedimentation and ongoing natural erosion factor into our understanding and analysis.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

 

Initial work programme

18.     The issues related to sediment can only be tackled successfully by taking an integrated view.

19.     In February 2018, the Natural Environment Strategy (NES) unit identified the need for a strategic, regional approach to erosion and sediment control as a cross-council initiative. 

20.     Reducing sediment loads to waterways has also been a feature of other council-wide statutory and non-statutory work programmes, such as the implementation of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS-FM) and response to Sea Change - Tai Timu Tai Pari.

21.     During 2018, a series of staff interviews and cross-council workshops assessed the gaps, barriers and opportunities for reducing sediment loads to waterways and recognised the need to maintain the value of Auckland’s soil as an adjoined issue. 

22.     Six distinct but related work areas were identified.  This ‘package’ forms the proposed strategic approach to sediment.

1)      Better Information: Identify the gaps in our knowledge and understanding, and how we address those through use of data, research and intelligence 

Recognising the extensive work already undertaken, and ongoing through the Wai Ora – Healthy Waterways Programme, RIMU’s Research Programme and Knowledge Auckland, further investigation in this area falls under two themes:

a.  Coordination of information, data and research: to improve transparency and sharing of sediment-related information, data and research across council and externally.

b.  Research and evidence: focussing on current gaps in council knowledge of sediment issues and management approaches.

2)      Strategy and Policy: Examine the gaps and opportunities for improving the management of sediment in regional strategies, plans and policies across council group and industry partners, and where council can influence central government direction on sediment 

Project streams underway include reviews for improved sediment outcomes within the context of the following strategies and policies:

·     Auckland Plan 2050

·     Auckland Unitary Plan (operative in part)

·     Auckland’s Water Strategy (under development)

·     Strategic land development processes for housing and developing.

Staff are also participating in the Ministry for the Environment Sediment Expert Group and development of the ‘Essential Freshwater’ package; this involves both supporting national initiatives of benefit to all regions, while helping to ensure that Auckland’s issues are understood, and effective responses supported.

3)      Interventions: Examine current interventions and investigate how key learnings can support improved compliance 

This Committee has previously expressed concern around sediment control in Auckland’s urbanising catchments and the potential high risk to the environment from non-compliance with erosion and sediment controls.

In response, the results of earlier investigations were used to provide input to the final draft of GD05: Erosion and Sediment Control Guide for Land Disturbing Activities.  It now includes explicit reference to ‘sensitive receiving environments’ within the fundamental principles of erosion and sediment control, as well as reference to the Auckland Plan, the recently published small sites booklet, and the impacts of climate change (see paragraph 24 in Attachment A).

The Licensing and Regulatory Compliance Targeted Initiatives unit (the unit) has had significant success in achieving high levels of compliance with erosion and sediment controls on targeted, small construction sites. A second area of immediate focus has been to better understand how a coordinated, strategic approach could build on this at a region-wide scale.

The results of the unit’s work at Flat Bush, Hobsonville and Paerata has provided invaluable evidence that education and training, whilst an important part of the solution, has limited success in achieving compliance in the absence of sustained, quality inspection and enforcement.

Almost 20,000 small sites are being developed in Auckland each year. Sustained education and training of the various actors within the building industry to improve compliance is costly at the scale required to cover the whole region and keep pace with Auckland’s growth.

Therefore, the focus has been to establish new and innovative ways of working that:

·    use the collective resources of council to achieve earlier and more sustained compliance on the small sites across the region

·    are embedded in council processes and independent of staff turnover.

Further initiatives are being explored with the unit, in collaboration with Environmental Services and Healthy Waters, to introduce targeted and region-wide industry incentives that will encourage those who contribute to the problem, to become part of the solution.

4)      Monitoring and Evaluation: Define what council needs to monitor and how that can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of policies and interventions

Monitoring and evaluation of both sediment generation and fate, as well as interventions to minimise sediment loss, are an important component to close the policy effectiveness loop. To do this, an integrated ‘source to sink’ monitoring framework is required; at a catchment level we need to understand where the sediment is coming from (source) and where it ends up (sink) and what the impact is on the receiving environment. This requires a ‘mountains to sea’ approach in monitoring programmes. Specific monitoring of the effectiveness of sediment policies and mitigation devices is required. 


 

The Freshwater Management Tool (FWMT) is an integrated contaminant load and in-stream concentration model currently being built by Healthy Waters to help council meet the requirements of the NPS-FM and develop Water Quality Improvement Strategies.  The FWMT will provide a major step forward in Auckland Council’s ability to better understand current and future scenario state assessments for the region for sediment and other pollutants.

Modelling done for the FWMT has only been possible because of past investment in data collection and speaks to the importance of strategic, long-term monitoring. Ongoing validation monitoring will be required and there will be areas of specific monitoring and research required to improve assumptions in the model. This work will directly inform the development of the Unitary Plan provisions to address sediment and other contaminants.

Key Outputs 4.1 Sediment Monitoring Strategy and 4.2 Device Effectiveness Scoping Report of the programme will address these evolving monitoring needs (Attachment A).

5)      Coordinating and Building Capacity: Establish what skills and resources are needed for the council group to make informed decisions and to implement and enforce strategies, plans and policies

The aim of this workstream is to identify, and put in place, the capacity and processes required to ensure sediment management is coordinated across the council group’s regulatory, operational and strategic functions.

Effective management of erosion and sediment requires working collaboratively on activities across the council group, as well as with mana whenua and external stakeholders. Evidence suggests that, while there are some local areas of success, this is not happening at any real scale.

After mapping out how functions relating to sediment are split across the council group, the initial aim of this work area is to develop a clear understanding of options to deliver as much as possible within existing resources through improved collaboration. Final recommendations will identify if/where work can be completed within existing resources, and any trade-offs that this might require, and if/where requests for additional funding need to be brought forward for consideration in forthcoming Long-term Plan 2021 processes.

6)      Communication and Engagement: Look at how and with what messages we engage council, mana whenua, industry partners and wider stakeholders

A key output of this work area is to develop a shared and coordinated regional narrative for sediment, based on our latest understanding of sediment sources and the effectiveness of interventions. Collating this information will facilitate a coordinated approach across the council group. It will also provide a coherent picture to the public of the strategies, policies, actions and interventions the council group is using to address the sediment issue.  

Sediment is complex, and the impacts today are a result of historic wide-scale land clearance, rural activities, decades of urbanisation and recent growth pressures. It is critical that this story is well understood, so that interventions can target both existing and potential sedimentation problems more effectively and realistically. This will be an iterative process as historic and new regional/national research add valuable insight to this complex and challenging story. 

An early draft of this narrative was provided to the Hauraki Gulf Forum (20 August 2018) and the SeaChange Political Reference Group (26 September 2018) in the context of meeting strategic sediment objectives for the Hauraki Gulf.  Work is currently underway to expand the narrative to include initiatives and projects across the whole region, including Manukau and Kaipara Harbours.


 

Project timing

23.     Going forward, the proposed work programme is split into three phases:

·        Finalise identification of issues: this will involve completion of the analyses outlined as Key Outputs in Attachment A, which will inform the development of proposed options (Dec 2018 – Mar 2019).

·        Develop options and recommendations: during this phase the findings and recommendations of each of the Key Outputs will be discussed and tested with internal and external stakeholders to consolidate in an implementation programme (April 2019 – June 2019).

·        Implement change: ongoing, dependent on options and agreement from Committee, as required (from June 2019).

24.     Attachment A expands on the proposed programme scope under the six headings outlined above, highlighting early findings and outcomes already achieved, as well as listing Key Outputs to be delivered over the next six months.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

25.     Although only two of Auckland’s Local Board Plans contain specific reference to sediment[1], all Local Board Plans refer to aspirations for improving the quality of waterways and harbour(s) and include actions that support sediment management. 

26.     Local Board views will be sought as part of Work Area 6: Communication and Engagement, acknowledging that Healthy Waters already works closely with Local Boards to deliver projects focused on improving water quality outcomes, for example through programmes to improve education and awareness of erosion and sediment control compliance issues on small sites.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

27.     Reducing sedimentation and sediment run-off into waterways will contribute to the reversal of the environmental decline of, and enhance the mauri of, major waterbodies in Tamaki Makaurau. This will in turn enhance the ability of mana whenua to exercise kaitiakitanga over their respective rōhe.

28.     Embedding Te Ao Māori concepts such as kaitiakitanga into our thinking and decision-making supports a focus on the inter-relationships between the natural environment and people. Support for this approach is clearly articulated in the Auckland Plan 2050 (Direction 2 of the Environment and Heritage Outcome) and through the approach of Auckland Council to the Treaty Settlement negotiations between the Crown and iwi. In the Kaipara Harbour these negotiations have a specific focus on environmental degradation caused by sediment.

29.     Guided by the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum, ‘te mauri o te wai – the life supporting capacity of water’ has been identified as a concept that encompasses our aspirations for water in Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland as part of the Auckland’s Waters Strategy.   In developing strategic options for better sediment outcomes, staff will seek guidance from the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum and partner with Māori and mana whenua in the implementation of future sediment work programmes.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

30.     No financial implications are identified outside of existing resources at this stage. Options for additional resources, if required, will be presented to Committee in June 2019, and subsequently for inclusion within the Long-term Plan 2021 and other processes.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

31.     The risks to council are as follows:

·        Reputational: Auckland Plan 2050 not delivering multiple outcomes, nor organisation delivering on central government expectations. Additionally, it will be important to convey goals that are aspirational but realistic, recognising the complex interaction of past and current sedimentation.

·        Environmental: continued environmental degradation, and statutory obligations not met.

·        Financial: from not realising financial savings by working collaboratively to achieve shared outcomes. Reduced economic opportunities for the region.

·        Social and Community: lack of buy-in from communities, mana whenua and industry partners if council is not seen to be progressing sediment improvements at a regional scale.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

32.     Next steps for the programme are as follows:

·        Continue with the strategic work programme within the timeframes set out in this report.

·        Link to central government initiative: ‘Essential Freshwater’ package.

·        Bring implementation options to the appropriate council committees by June 2019.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Strategic Approach to Sediment: Work programme

77

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Sarah Le Claire - Principal Analyst-Strategy

Authorisers

Jacques  Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 

Auckland Climate Action Plan

 

File No.: CP2018/23591

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To update the Committee on progress made in developing the Auckland Climate Action Plan and to endorse the upcoming three-day climate symposium event as part of its development process.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       In February 2018, the Environment and Community Committee approved the development of an integrated climate change action plan, addressing both the rising emissions in the region and the impacts of our changing climate (ENV/2018/11).  The new plan will replace the Low Carbon Auckland plan of 2014.

3.       In November 2018, Committee endorsed Auckland’s reapplication for membership to the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, including the requirement to develop a climate plan consistent with the Paris Agreement aspiration of 1.5°C maximum temperature rise.  Auckland’s Climate Action Plan will fulfil this requirement.

4.       Development of Auckland’s Climate Action Plan is being facilitated by Auckland Council, with extensive collaboration and engagement across council, with public, private and voluntary sectors and drawing in wider expertise as appropriate.

5.       Plan development has so far included:

·    commissioning new evidence such as emissions modelling and 2120 climate projections

·    feedback from the Independent Advisory Group

·    regular input from a working group with representation across Council, government and DHBs, C40 Cities

·    a crowd-sourcing of ideas from the ClimateAKL.nz web platform

·    a partnership agreement with Central Government

·    subject matter expert workshops.

6.       An Auckland Climate Symposium, proposed in March 2019, will continue to expand on cross-sector collaboration and engagement in the lead-up to drafting the climate plan. The three-day symposium will include speakers, panel events and a leaders forum. 

7.       “Twelve priority areas of focus and six key topics for discussion have been proposed after a programme of workshops with subject matter experts. A key element of the symposium is to further develop the priority areas of focus and key topics with a broader pool of subject matter experts across sectors. Topics and focus areas will not represent all topics being developed as part of the plan, but will be selected by assessing each against key criteria including level of impact, partnership and collaboration, ability to scale, existing momentum and evidence, and significant public and stakeholder interest.  Focus areas and potential actions will subsequently be tested across multiple outcomes including emissions reduction, resilience, health, economy, Te Ao Māori and equity. 

8.       Commitment to the symposium, including co-funding and participation, have been secured from key partners, including central government.

9.       The intention is to workshop the focus areas and topics that have emerged so far with the Planning Committee early in the new year, prior to the symposium.

10.     The next steps after the symposium is to draft the climate plan, get input from the Committee, and seek feedback from Aucklanders on the draft plan in July-August 2019.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a)      note the progress made to date in developing Auckland’ Climate Action Plan, particularly the emerging areas for focus and key topics.

b)      endorse the Auckland Climate Symposium to be held in March 2019.

 

Horopaki / Context

Previous decisions

11.     Previous decisions made by the Committee in relation to Auckland’s Climate Action Plan are:

·    Resolution Number ENV/2018/11

         a) approve the approach to the 2018 review and update of Low Carbon Auckland: Auckland’s Energy Resilience and Low Carbon Action Plan

·    Resolution Number ENV/2018/149

a) endorse Auckland Council’s membership reapplication to the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, including the requirement to develop a climate plan consistent with the Paris Agreement aspiration of a 1.5˚C maximum temperature rise.

Links to strategies, policies and plans

12.     Delivery of the plan provides a key mechanism for delivery across outcome areas of the Auckland Plan and aligns to several on-going strategies and action plans (Figure 1).


 

Stakeholder and subject matter expert input

13.     Insights and feedback on both the process and emerging content of the plan were sought through the Mayoral and Committee-appointed Independent Advisory Group; a working group with representation from across Auckland Council, Government and DHBs and through our membership of C40 Cities.

14.     In October 2018, a series of subject matter expert workshops were convened to review emerging focus areas across four themes:

·    climate-smart communities (our people)

·    healthy and resilient buildings and spaces (our places)

·    climate ready systems and infrastructure (our region)

·    a prosperous economic future (our economy).

15.     The workshops and actions for review were developed from research highlighted in the previous section and aligned to a series of ‘must haves’ identified through all stakeholder engagement to date (Attachment A). 

Supporting evidence

16.     Council commissioned consultants to determine the key levers to achieve a net zero emissions target for Auckland. The initial findings show emissions reductions opportunities for different sectors in Auckland (Figure 2). The figure illustrates the difference between Business as Usual (BAU) projections and emissions reductions pathways to 2050. To address the remaining emissions, Auckland needs to consider further reductions through carbon sequestration opportunities.

Figure 2: Emissions reduction pathways

 

17.     As presented to committee in February 2018, NIWA was commissioned by Council, Watercare, Auckland Transport, Panuku and the DHBs to provide climate projections for the region through to 2120 (including heat, precipitation, sea level rise amongst other variables). 

18.     Further to that report, Council’s Research and Evaluation Unit (RIMU) has been developing a climate risk assessment for Auckland, using the projections as a basis. The assessment covers areas such as social vulnerability, heat impacts, air quality, terrestrial and marine ecosystems.  This work has been used to inform actions and focus area development. A summary report will be available in the new year.

19.     Through Council’s membership, C40 has also provided support in the form of a dedicated Auckland Deadline 2020 report and access to international experience and expertise.  Best practice and a review of 1.5 degrees Celsius compliant plans has underpinned identifying focus areas.

20.     At two key stages of the process, Environment and Community Committee workshops were held to give staff direction before moving to the next stage.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

21.     The culmination of research, evaluation and wide-reaching engagement has led to emerging areas of focus to deliver a pathway toward the 1.5 degree target and to build resilience across the region to the ongoing impacts of climate change.

22.     The emerging 12 priority areas of focus are:

·     Mātauranga Māori (knowledge) in climate decision making

·     enhancing ecosystem services and connectivity

·     delivering climate compatible development and infrastructure

·     shifting Auckland’s energy from fossil fuels with local and regional renewable energy

·     establishing area-based retrofit and resilience schemes

·     delivering healthy, resilient and equitable transport options

·     building community resilience to climate change

·     establishing a circular economy for the region

·     delivering innovative and equitable business solutions

·     identifying and growing Auckland’s carbon sequestration potential

·     building food security for Auckland

·     delivering youth and intergenerational equity

23.     Continued sessions with key stakeholders – including as part of the Auckland Climate Symposium – will help to refine the areas of focus and address the requisite evidence, policy, finance and funding, innovation, communication and engagement, and partnership and governance for successful implementation.

Auckland Climate Symposium

Figure 3: Engagement and development process leading up to and beyond a climate symposium 

 

24.     The Auckland Climate Symposium will continue to expand on cross-sector collaboration and engagement in the lead-up to drafting the climate plan (Figure 3).  The symposium reflects both the interest from hundreds of multi-sector subject experts in building on their participation at workshops in September, as well as create an opportunity to build in a front-footed approach to implementation in the development of a plan.  It also reflects that Auckland Council has limited levers for direct control of the outcomes desired, so collaboration across sectors to develop viable and deliverable ideas is necessary.

25.     The proposed three-day symposium will include speakers, panel events and a leaders forum and will address focus areas and key topics aligned to the focus areas. 

26.     The topics will be further developed with subject matter experts across sectors and will not include all topics being developed as part of the plan.  To maximise outputs from the symposium and their utility in developing an action plan, topics have been selected by assessing each against key criteria, including: level of impact, partnership and collaboration, ability to scale, existing momentum and evidence, as well as significant public and stakeholder interest.  Areas and potential actions will subsequently be tested across multiple outcomes, (for example, emissions reduction, resilience, health, economy, Te Ao Māori and equity).

27.     The 51x key topics for further discussion and development at the symposium are:

·    a climate innovation and skills hub

·    regional blue and green networks

·    decentralised and local energy solutions for the region

·    community resilience to inundation

·    a circular construction sector

·    Mātauranga Māori (knowledge) across summit actions

28.     Attachment 1 provides more detail on the key topics.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

29.     Local boards will be key to the implementation of the plan. Local boards will be invited to participate in the proposed climate symposium. They will also receive a summary report back from the symposium with key findings and will be engaged further in the development of the action plan.  This builds on previous workshops and engagement, including individual and cluster engagement with local boards in both June and September.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

30.     Climate change will affect areas over which Māori have kaitiakitanga; impacting ecosystems, cultural sites, shaping community vulnerability and resilience, and linking to economic outcomes.  

31.     Initial engagement has included hui, convening the Independent Advisory Group with two Māori members, and work with the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum to establish a position paper that identifies areas of priority and on-going opportunities to embed Mātauranga Māori into climate decision making to benefit Tamaki Makaurau.

32.     In recognition of the needs and opportunities, a cross-cutting area of focus at the symposium will be learning from Māori in the development and implementation of the plan. Mana whenua will be invited to participate in the symposium.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

33.     Costs for the symposium will be covered within existing budgets, from an existing agreement for co-funding with central government and from potential sponsors.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

34.     Risks from holding a climate symposium are minimal.  They may include reputational risks of not delivering on partners’ expectations at the symposium or strategic risks if the topic areas aren’t aligned to emerging priorities and needs.  Each are easily mitigated by working closely with partners and subject experts in the development of the symposium.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

35.     Key next steps leading up to and beyond the Auckland Climate Symposium include:

·    establishment of stakeholder teams for topic area development at symposium and on-going development of plan (December 2018)

·    briefing stakeholder teams in advance of the symposium (February 2019)

·    Committee workshops (February 2019)

·    Auckland Climate Symposium (March 2019)

·    Collating all input and developing draft plan (March – May 2019)

·    Draft plan to Environment and Community committee for input and adoption (June 2019)

·    Public consultation of draft plan (July – August 2019)

 

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Seven key topics for the Auckland Climate Symposium

93

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Parin Thompson, Principal Specialist Climate Mitigation

Authorisers

Jacques  Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 

I am Auckland Implementation Plan and Evaluation Framework

 

File No.: CP2018/20759

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To endorse the Implementation Plan and Evaluation Framework for I Am Auckland, the strategic action plan for children and young people.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       I Am Auckland, Auckland Council’s strategic action plan for children and young people, was launched in 2013. The plan’s seven goals were linked to the long-term, aspirational targets of the Auckland Plan.

3.       In 2017, the I Am Auckland Status Report was completed, which set out how well Auckland council and its council-controlled organisations (CCOs) had delivered on these goals.

4.       Key achievements included over two-hundred discrete child and youth focused activities across all goal areas.

5.       Areas for improvement included: greater delivery on ‘Goal 7: All Rangatahi will thrive’, education and employment outcomes for Maori and Pacific young people, and improved implementation and evaluation.

6.       In response, the Environment and Community Committee approved the development of an Implementation Plan and Evaluation Framework for I Am Auckland (ENV/2017/10).

7.       These have now been completed. Staff recommend the endorsement and publication of the Implementation Plan and Evaluation Framework, which will:

·    increase the visibility of child and youth outcomes

·    provide evidence of impact

·    create a schedule for monitoring progress and help focus delivery in priority areas

·    reinforce accountability for action with clear roles and responsibilities for delivery.

8.       If endorsed, annual monitoring reports of the Implementation Plan will be provided to the committee each year, as well as a full status report on I am Auckland every three years.

9.       There could be a reputational risk for council if delivery is shown to be limited or lacking in impact. Regular oversight through the implementation process and consistent evaluation will mitigate this by highlighting issues early and providing opportunity for adaptation and improvement. This risk is considered low.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a)      endorse the I Am Auckland Implementation Plan and the I Am Auckland Evaluation Framework.

Horopaki / Context

10.     In 2013, I Am Auckland (the plan) defined council’s commitment to children and young people. It established seven goals to help focus and align council’s work to create a city that puts children and young people first.

Over 200 actions delivered against goals, some room for improvement

11.     The I Am Auckland Status Report 2017 reviewed how well Auckland Council and its CCOs (council whānau) were delivering on the plan.

12.     It demonstrated that the council whānau had delivered more than 200 child and youth focused activities since the adoption of I Am Auckland in 2013. These encompassed deliverables across all seven goals.

13.     Examples ranged from: Jobfest, aimed at getting young people into employment; to Auckland Transport’s Walking School Bus programme, which promotes active transport; and Panuku’s Workshops on the Wharf, with a focus on stimulating children’s creativity and placemaking.

14.     It also identified the following areas for improvement and prioritization:

·    doing more to achieve  ‘Goal 7: All Rangatahi will thrive’ which had been delivered on the least

·    improving implementation and evaluation of outcomes

·    focussing on education and employment outcomes for Māori and Pacific young people

·    continue focussing on areas of the city with high numbers of young people, particularly in the south.

15.     To improve implementation, and to better understand the impact council is having on improving outcomes for children and young people, the Environment and Community Committee approved the development of an Implementation Plan and Evaluation Framework for I Am Auckland (ENV(2017)10).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

The I Am Auckland Implementation Plan will focus delivery across the council whānau

16.     The I Am Auckland Implementation Plan is a three-year plan (Attachment A) and maps out the actions that the council whānau will deliver to achieve the goals of I am Auckland.

17.     It will:

·    increase the visibility of child and youth outcomes

·    help focus delivery in priority areas

·    create a schedule for monitoring progress

·    reinforce accountability for action and define clear roles and responsibilities for delivery.

How we will work together for successful implementation

18.     The proposed I Am Auckland implementation process is set out below. Figure 1 outlines the roles of all parties involved and how they will collaborate to ensure successful implementation.

19.     The Implementation Plan includes child and youth focused projects or activities across the council whānau that are either underway or being planned. It sets out how these contribute to the I Am Auckland goals and align to the Auckland Plan outcomes. 

20.     Stronger leadership, regular monitoring and evaluation, will result in an incremental shift to better outcomes for children and young people.

The I Am Auckland Evaluation Framework will help us understand impact

21.     The I Am Auckland Evaluation Framework, supports the Implementation Plan. It will allow council to assess the impact initiatives and programmes are making on the lives of children and young people (Attachment B).

22.     The framework will:

·    provide a better understanding of the impact of council’s activities

·    assist the council to better understand the overall success of I Am Auckland

·    show progress towards achieving outcomes, without putting undue strain on organisational resources

·    over time embed the practice of evaluation for child and youth activities

·    provide insights that will enhance programme design and delivery.

23.     The I Am Auckland Evaluation Framework incorporates three elements:

·    the high-level progress towards each of the goals of the plan

·    evaluation of individual child and youth-focused initiatives

·    the uptake of I Am Auckland itself, its implementation across the council whānau and that we are delivering on our commitments to children and young people.

24.     The figure below sets out a three-tier framework and the measures that will be used to assess progress. These will be reported in the three-yearly I Am Auckland status reports.

Figure 2:  I Am Auckland Evaluation Framework

Initiative level evaluation allows us to align activities with outcomes

25.     Since the 2017 Status Report, council’s policy staff have provided support to a range of business areas across the council whānau to upskill in evaluation. This has included assisting in the development of evaluation plans for 12 different child and youth programmes and activities. These are:

·    BUZZED, an alcohol and drug social media campaign

·    #AklPlay Social Sports, a sport programme for young people who are otherwise not engaged in formal sport

·    Storytimes, the libraries’ storytelling events for young children

·    Drive Safe Around Schools, a collection of road safety initiatives focused around the school term

·    Sustainable Schools, an environmental leadership programme for school students

·    Kākano, a visual arts programme for at risk youth in Henderson

·    Arts Education in Schools, a programme of arts workshops delivered to school aged children

·    Theatre for Children, an annual series of performances for children in Takapuna

·    Tula’I, a leadership programme for Pasifika students in west Auckland

·    Athens Community Trust Bridging Pathways Project, a vocational work readiness programme for young people in alternate education

·    SouthSci, a STEM education programme connecting students with scientists

·    Youth Voice Groups, groups of young people established to provide local youth perspectives to local boards

26.     An example of one of these evaluation plans is attached (Attachment C). All evaluation plans articulate a clear Logic Model to align activities with intended outcomes.

27.     This work is ongoing and a community of practice will be set up to continue momentum in this space, share learning and issues as they arise.

28.     As part of the annual monitoring report, the results of any initiative level evaluations will be included as snapshots.

 

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

29.     A review of local board plans indicated that local boards are succesfully delivering on a number the goals of the plan. Local boards are also doing well to deliver actions for children and youth outcomes through their discretionary funding and grants.

30.     The Implementation Plan and Evaluation Framework, can be used by local boards to inform their future local board planning and direction setting to further support children and young people and understand the impact their work is having on the people in their communities. 

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

31.     The plan’s Goal 7 ‘Rangatahi tū rangatira’ contributes to Auckland Council’s support for rangatahi to flourish, particularly through leadership and co-development of action with tamariki and rangatahi.  This goal is a key priority area in the Implementation Plan. 

32.     Regular monitoring of programmes and activities through the Implementation Plan, and further assessing impact through the Evaluation Framework will help the council to focus and improve delivery on our commitments set out in goal 7.

33.     Since the 2017 Status Report, there has already been increased delivery in this area – for example the development of the Rangatahi Tū Rangatira Programme, which will give rangatahi greater opportunity to engage and develop skills around local decision making.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

34.     The Implementation Plan and Evaluation Framework will be published and distributed within available council resources. The actions within the Implementation Plan are those that business areas have committed to and are funded through their annual budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

35.    

Risk

H/M/L

Mitigation

There is a reputational risk, if the Implementation Plan and Evaluation Framework updates show that delivery of I Am Auckland is limited or lacking in impact.

L

The Implementation Plan and Evaluation Framework will focus and support delivery of the strategy and outcomes for children and young people.  Oversight and accountability for delivery will increase, and issues will be highlighted early, to allow for adaptation and improvement. 

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

36.     Should the committee endorse the Implementation Plan and Evaluation Framework, these will be published in December 2018. The full reporting cycle is outlined below.

 

 

 

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

I Am Auckland Implementation Plan

101

b

I Am Auckland Evaluation Framework

131

c

Evaluation Plan Example

147

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Elizabeth Fitton-Higgins - Team Leader Community Policy - South

Antonia Butler - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 

PDF Creator



Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 

Draft Sports Investment Plan

 

File No.: CP2018/07771

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To approve the draft Increasing Aucklanders’ participation in sport: Sport investment plan 2019-2039 for public consultation in early 2019.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       To respond to population growth and demographic change, Auckland Council has developed a plan for how it will invest in sport for the next 20 years.

3.       The draft Increasing Aucklanders’ participation in sport: Sport investment plan 2019-2039 will:

·    increase participation in sport by targeting communities of greatest need and addressing disparities

·    deliver a broad range of programmes, services and facilities that respond to the diverse needs of Auckland’s communities

·    address population growth and changing sport preferences through regular assessments of, and changes to, programmes, services and facilities to maximise participation. 

4.       Staff recommend releasing the draft plan for public consultation.

5.       There are low reputational risks arising from the changes proposed in the draft plan. They will be mitigated through communication with key stakeholders.

6.       Staff plan to undertake public consultation from February to March 2019, before seeking final approval of the plan in June 2019.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a)      approve the draft Increasing Aucklanders’ participation in sport: Sport investment plan 2019-2039 for public consultation.

Horopaki / Context

The plan sets out a new sport investment approach, which better responds to growth and the changing needs of Aucklanders

7.       Auckland is experiencing rapid population growth and social change. Our diverse communities have different preferences for sport and recreation activities.

8.       The draft Increasing Aucklanders’ participation in sport: Sport Investment Plan 2019-2039 is the council’s response to these changes. It sets out a new approach to regional investment in sports facilities, programmes and services for Aucklanders over the next 20 years.

9.       The draft plan focuses on delivering a single outcome: increasing Aucklanders’ participation in community sport. This aligns with the vision of the Auckland Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan 2014-2024: ‘Aucklanders: more active, more often.’ To do this, we will:

·    target communities of greatest need and addressing disparities

·    deliver a broad range of programmes, services and facilities that respond to the diverse needs of Auckland’s communities

·    address population growth and changing sport preferences through regular assessments of, and changes to, programmes, services and facilities. 

Adoption of the plan will contribute to multiple strategic outcomes

10.     Sport is one of the key areas Auckland Council invests in to deliver on the ‘Belonging and Participation’ outcome in Auckland Plan 2050.

Belonging and Participation

·    Focus Area 7 – ‘Recognise the value of arts, culture, sports and recreation to quality of life’

·    Direction 1 – ‘Foster an inclusive Auckland where everyone belongs’

·    Direction 2 – ‘Improve health and wellbeing for all Aucklanders by reducing disparities in opportunities.’

11.     The draft plan has three main sections:

·    ‘Section one: Why we invest’ explains the reasons for having an investment plan and the strategic context.

·    ‘Section two: What we invest in’ explains the outcomes sought from the council’s sports investment, the scope and focus of that investment and the principles that will guide future investment decisions.

·    ‘Section three: How we will work’ explains the investment framework that will be adopted to achieve the outcomes.

12.     The development of the plan involved several stages of Governing Body decisions, consultation and research (see page 6).  The attached draft plan provides the chronological timeline for developing the plan.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Achieving the desired outcomes requires putting people at the heart our investment

13.     The council will take a targeted, people-centric approach to increase sport participation in Auckland. Future sport investment will focus on meeting the needs of three distinct groups of people:

1.   

People who already play sport:

 

There will be more fit-for-purpose facilities and programmes to keep them actively involved in sport.

 

2.

People who play a new sport (like futsal)

 

Currently there are limited opportunities to play but, in the future, there will be more fit-for-purpose facilities and programmes that cater to new and emerging sports.

 

3.

People who currently do not participate in sport

 

Auckland Council will create more opportunities and make it easier for them to take up sport.

14.     A key step towards increasing sport participation rates in these targeted groups is through addressing disparities.

15.     Decision-makers will use a set of principles to prioritise multiple investment projects. ‘Equity’ has the highest weighing to ensure all Aucklanders enjoy the same outcomes. The full list of principles includes:

·      Equity (40 per cent of assessment) – Sport investment should ensure equity of outcomes across the population regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status or where people live.

·      Outcome- focused (30 per cent of assessment) – There needs to be a clear ‘line of sight’ between each investment and the outcomes it delivers.

·      Financial sustainability (30 per cent of assessment) – Investment decisions need to be financially sustainable for council and sports organisations.

·      Accountability (10 per cent of assessment) – Auckland Council has responsibility to act in the best interests of Aucklander.

There will be changes to the way we currently invest in sport

16.     The draft plan sets out four key shifts in our approach as illustrated in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Key shifts


 

17.     Figure 2 below to explains the reasons for these key shifts, the problems they will tackle and the benefits for Aucklanders. 

Figure 2: Intervention logic map

       

18.     The plan will ensure robust, evidence-based decision-making and ongoing monitoring of benefits delivered to our communities.

19.     Performance data will be collected to measure the return on investment. This will be shared with investors and ratepayers.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

Feedback from local boards showed general support for an investment plan

20.     Staff met with local boards between February and April 2018 and sought feedback on the key components of the plan.

21.     Feedback from local boards was generally supportive of a new investment plan for sports facilities to ensure consistency, efficiency, transparency and outcome delivery.

22.     Challenges relating to population growth, land supply and budgetary constraints were highlighted. Local boards also noted challenges specific to their areas and populace.

23.     Feedback showed a strong preference to have a flexible approach to accommodate diverse local needs.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

Māori outcomes can be delivered through increased sport participation and partnerships

24.     Sport participation contributes directly to the following ‘Māori Identity and Wellbeing’ outcome in Auckland Plan 2050:

Māori Identity and Wellbeing

·      Direction 1 – ‘Advance Māori wellbeing’

·      Focus area 1 – ‘Meet the needs and support the aspirations of tamariki and their whanau’

25.     According to Sport New Zealand data weekly sport participation of Māori in Auckland (76.8 per cent) is similar to European (76.3 per cent), but higher than Asian (70.7 per cent) and Pasifika (69.1 per cent).

26.     Research also show pockets of sedentary Māori who do not have adequate opportunities to participate in sport. It also shows Māori have different preferences for sport and recreational activities compared to other ethnic groups.

27.     Feedback from the Mana Whenua Forum and Aktive Māori Advisory Group during public consultation on the discussion document informed the development of the plan.

28.     A key area of focus was the delivery of outcomes through increased Māori participation. Means of achieving this goal include partnerships with iwi and Māori organisations, to manage demand efficiently and to use sports programmes and facilities as a social hub to strengthen cultural and community connections.

29.     Partnerships will draw on Māori-centric models and collective models of learning so that key Māori concepts become embedded in sport service design and delivery.

30.     Staff will seek further feedback from the Mana Whenua Forum and Aktive Māori Advisory Group as part of the consultation on the draft plan.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

31.     Once adopted, the plan will guide all council investment in sport.

32.     An immediate focus will be to establish a clear and contestable process for the allocation of the $120 million Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund established in the Long-term Plan 2018-2028.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

Public consultation comes with low risk, which can be mitigated

33.     Staff have identified low reputational risks associated with public consultation on the draft plan. These risks will be mitigated through regular communication and engagement with key stakeholders.

Type

Description

Level

Likelihood

Mitigation

Reputational 

Negative reactions to some changes in the draft plan

Low

Likely to occur

·    Explain the rationale behind the changes and the benefits to Aucklanders

·    Gather feedback on the issues that concern Aucklanders and share this with decision-makers

·    Consider all feedback and amend the plan or explain the reasons why it was not included.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

34.     If approved, staff will undertake public consultation from February to March 2019.

35.     Final approval of the plan will be sought in June 2019.

36.     Implementation of the plan will occur in stages over the next three to five years, depending on council budgetary and planning processes. An indicative timeline of the potential changes is presented in section three of the draft plan.

37.     Figure three below shows the next steps in a flow chart.

Figure 3: Next steps

 

This plan will inform the development of other investment plans

38.     The draft plan sets out an overarching investment framework to help decision-makers prioritise investment between different sports.

39.     Separate, but related plans are being developed to guide council’s investment in golf and play facilities. These plans will be consistent with the overarching framework set out in Increasing Aucklanders’ participation in sport: Sport investment plan 2019-2039

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Increasing Aucklanders' participation in sport: Sport Investment Plan 2019-2039 (Under Separate Cover)

 

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Nancy Chu - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 

Adoption of Facility Partnerships Policy

 

File No.: CP2018/20047

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To seek adoption of the Facility Partnerships Policy.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       Facility partnerships contribute to the belonging and participation outcome of the Auckland Plan, by helping foster an inclusive Auckland and enabling participation in society.

3.       The new Facility Partnerships Policy will enable the council and community partners to make informed and strategic decisions about investment in facilities for our diverse communities. The four key principles proposed within the policy to guide future investment are:

·           strategic investment based on achieving outcomes

·           achieving equity of outcomes for all Aucklanders

·           maximising value for Aucklanders

·           investing in sustainable facilities and partnerships.

4.       Under the policy, facility partnerships will be delivered through a transparent contestable selection process. Advice will focus on the need for and impact of community services, comprehensive costings and viable funding models that support long-term sustainability.

5.       Enabling community-led proposals requires the council to tailor our approach to reflect the scale, complexity and risk of proposals. The policy provides this flexibility.

6.       The policy outlines the importance of quality relationships and the need to support community partners of lower capability. The new policy will coordinate staff expertise and advice to improve partners’ experience and support better decision-making. 

7.       The policy responds to the key issues that have prevented the council from realising the full potential of facility partnerships including:

·           ad-hoc decision-making

·           failure to account for lifetime costs and benefits

·           poor coordination within council.

8.       Public engagement on the draft Facility Partnership Policy did not identify substantive issues. Feedback was positive overall. Sixteen local boards resolved to support the adoption of the policy. A further five local boards qualified their support. Concerns included how the investment principles will be applied and whether they will unfairly advantage some communities. Local boards highlighted a lack of dedicated budget.

9.       The main risk of adopting the policy is raising community expectations of additional investment in facility partnerships. This is partly mitigated through the Sports and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund of $120 million that creates additional capacity to support sports and recreation partnerships. Clear communication about the Long-term Plan funding process and existing budgets will also mitigate this risk.

10.     The policy principles, investment priorities and criteria will be applied to facility partnership proposals in the second quarter of 2019. Progressive implementation of the full policy will begin from July 2019.


 

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a)      adopt the Facility Partnerships Policy (Attachment B of the agenda report).

 

Horopaki / Context

Doing more with less through facility partnerships that leverage, empower and optimise

11.     Auckland Council provides a wide range of community, arts and sports facilities. Around 300 are operated by community organisations through ‘facility partnerships’ with the council.

12.     Facility partnerships contribute to the belonging and participation outcome of the Auckland Plan. The council has signalled more facility needs will be met through partnerships in future, as a way of empowering and enabling communities and ‘doing more with less’.

Discovery work for policy identified significant room for improvement

13.     In 2016 a cross-council team began work on a new regional policy to guide facility partnerships. Initial discovery work identified a range of issues preventing the council from realising the full potential of facility partnerships.

14.     These included ad-hoc and inconsistent decision-making, failure to account for lifetime costs and benefits of partnerships, and poor coordination within council. Findings were reported to this committee in February 2017 (ENV/2017/9).

New policy provides strategic approach, emphasis on viability and seamless experience

15.     Staff developed a draft policy to respond directly to these findings, and to enable the council and partners to make more informed and strategic investment decisions.

16.     The new approach introduces a more transparent and contestable selection process, with clear progression stages and decision points (see below).

17.     To progress, proposals will require stronger evidence of need and impact, more comprehensive costings (including consequential operational expenses) and a viable funding model that supports long-term facility sustainability.

18.     Council requirements will be tailored to reflect the scale, complexity and risk of proposals, and to support the organisational capability of partners where needed.

 

Clear principles to guide investment: outcomes, equity, value and sustainability

19.     All future investment should be aligned to four investment principles, which also underpin the policy’s investment priorities and eligibility criteria.

Valuing and supporting partner relationships fundamental to new approach

20.     The policy also recognises the importance of quality relationships, and the need to coordinate staff expertise and advice to improve partners’ experience and support better decision-making. This includes identifying lead relationship brokers for all partnerships.


 

Public engagement undertaken during July and August 2018

21.     In June 2018 the Environment and Community Committee endorsed the draft policy for public consultation and formal engagement with local boards (ENV/2018/74).

22.     Between June and August 2018, staff undertook public consultation and briefed interested advisory panels. Public consultation activities included six drop-in consultation events across Auckland, and online submissions via the council’s Have Your Say website.

23.     Staff asked specific questions to quantify the level of support for key parts of the policy, and sought qualitative feedback which was analysed thematically. A full summary of the public consultation and the main feedback themes is provided as Attachment A (section 1).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Public feedback shows strong support for new approach

24.     A total of 71 public submissions were received on the draft policy. Public feedback was positive overall. Most respondents agreed the proposed policy would help council to invest in the right partnerships, and be a better partner to communities.

“[The policy] covers a broad spectrum of possibilities and defines concepts that have not been published before.”

“My initial reaction [to commercial activities in partnership facilities] was "no" but I think it's articulated quite sensibly.”

“There will be many blurry boundaries, so I'd worry about council developing a black and white mentality around categorisation…”

“Treaty principles are a useful starting point to guide facility partnerships with Maori. However, such principles are affected by multiple interpretations.”

[The models are] very clearly articulated and make a lot of sense. I found the distinctions in the matrix for types of arrangements to be quite useful.”

“[A lead broker is an] absolutely fantastic idea. We find that staff changes and a lack of knowledge of who to go to for help a HUGE CHALLENGE.”

A sample of quotes from public feedback – see Attachment A, section 1

25.     Key themes that emerged from the public feedback included:

·   most respondents agree the policy will better enable council to invest in the right facility partnerships, and ensure that partnerships work for both partners and council

·   the investment principles, enabling appropriate commercial activities in facilities, and the establishment of lead relationship brokers were all positively received

·   the ‘Track, Type and Scale’ model was welcomed for encompassing a wide range of facility partnerships, and the intention to ensure requirements are proportionate

·   respondents want the new approach to make it easier for partners to navigate council systems and processes, and receive good support from staff

·   using the Treaty principles to guide partnerships with Māori was welcomed by most, but this is acknowledged as a complex area

·   respondents appreciated a more visually appealing and accessible policy document.

Most public concerns relate to application of policy to ‘messy reality’

26.     The concerns most commonly raised through public feedback are summarised below.

Area of concern

Response

How the investment principles will be applied in practice, especially where they must be ‘traded off’ against each other.

The policy does not weight the investment principles: all are important. We anticipate one or more principles will take priority in relation to individual investment decisions, with specific trade-offs and opportunity costs to consider in each case. Staff will advise decision-makers how well proposals address each principle and priority.

Whether some communities will be unfairly advantaged by the new approach – e.g. well-resourced groups better positioned to attract investment partners.

The policy states that we seek partnerships ‘to empower and enable communities… to build mana, prosperity, resilience, skills and capacity.’ Where we agree the partnership will build community capacity, this will boost the likelihood of investment. The policy also allows proactive approaches to partners to build on existing capacity.

Council support for smaller organisations could include helping them to identify and approach potential co-investors, working through the technical and legal aspects of a facility partnership proposal, and – once operating – helping them develop capability in areas like governance and financial management.

Whether the process is flexible enough to respond to the ‘messy reality’ of partnerships.

The policy acknowledges partnerships are not ‘one size fits all’, by providing a flexible range of models that can adapt and change over time. Some categorisation is necessary so that the council can ensure its expectations and requirements are appropriate to different circumstances.

Whether the higher level of staff support signalled in the policy will be properly resourced, and implemented as intended across all parts of council.

The policy does not necessarily require additional staff to be recruited. The accountabilities of the lead broker are primarily around improving coordination and navigation across council, and this may be more to do with reconfiguring workflow and clarifying responsibilities than recruiting new staff. However any resource implications of enhanced staff support will become clearer once detailed planning is undertaken.

Key regional stakeholders support early engagement to ensure aligned investment

27.     The policy was shared with key regional stakeholders prior to the draft being finalised. These included Foundation North, the Ministry of Education and Creative New Zealand.

28.     Feedback received was positive overall. Stakeholders see the merit in discussing potential partnership opportunities with the council early to ensure strategic alignment of major investments, especially within a constrained funding environment. The implementation planning phase will explore the best way to enable these conversations to take place.

29.     Discussions with the Ministry of Education, Regional Sports Trusts and the Sports Investors Forum in relation to facility partnerships are ongoing, with the current emphasis on the council’s draft Sports Facilities Investment Plan (presently in development).

Only minor changes required to policy to aid clarity, with operational concerns noted

30.     Overall, the feedback did not identify substantive issues with the draft policy itself. Small changes have been made to wording or formatting where needed for clarity or to aid understanding. However the majority of feedback related to operational matters, and this has been noted for the implementation planning phase.

31.     Attachment A (Section 3) identifies the policy changes suggested through feedback and how these have been (or will be) addressed. The final policy is provided as Attachment B.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

Local boards value facility partnerships and have decision-making responsibilities

32.     Local boards have some key decision-making responsibilities in this area, including:

·   determining local outcomes and advocating for local investment priorities

·   approving the location, design and fit-out of new and upgraded facilities in the network

·   allocating local discretionary funding and community leases of council property

·   governing local and sub-regional facility partnership relationships and agreements.

Local boards have been engaged throughout policy development

33.     Staff have engaged with local boards informally throughout this project, including discovery work in 2016, development of the approach in 2017, and testing in early 2018. Local board views and concerns have helped shape the draft policy.

34.     During July and August 2018, 18 local boards took up the offer of a workshop to hear an overview of the proposed policy approach and seek clarification on any areas of local interest or concern. The draft policy was formally reported to local boards in September and October 2018 so they could review public feedback prior to providing their formal feedback.

Local boards support the policy, with key concerns around funding and implementation

35.     Local boards supported the draft policy overall. Of 21 local boards, 16 resolved to support or endorse the policy, three boards resolved in support of ‘the overarching intent, purpose and objectives’ of the policy, and two boards resolved partial support. Twenty boards provided additional feedback which is summarised below and collated in Attachment A (section 2).

36.     Key themes from local board feedback included support for:

·   facility partnerships in principle, as a way to empower and benefit communities

·   provision for a range of partnership models with requirements proportionate to their size and scale, ensuring smaller organisations are not over-burdened or shut out

·   lead relationship brokers for all partnerships to coordinate council advice and support

·   commercial activities in partnership facilities to support financial sustainability, where these complement its purpose and any surplus is reinvested into the facility

·   valuing the community’s contribution, including enabling ‘in kind’ investment

·   investment in existing spaces in preference to building new facilities, as long as this doesn’t penalise areas without existing facilities.

37.     Most of the concerns identified in local board feedback relate to how the policy will be funded and implemented, rather than the policy approach itself. The concerns most commonly raised by local boards are summarised in the table below.

Area of concern

Response

Local boards’ limited ability to support facility partnerships from local resources, as local funding and community leases are already oversubscribed.

Whether additional budget will be allocated to implement the policy, and in particular how the lead relationship broker role and other staff support will be resourced.

Funding for new investment in partnerships and for policy implementation is discussed below (p40-44, and Risks).

Operationalising the lead relationship broker role will be a key focus during implementation planning.

How the policy will recognise local boards’ governance role, including their decision-making over local discretionary funding.

The facility partnerships lifecycle provides a high level outline of the decision-making process. Governance roles will give effect to the existing allocation of decision-making in the Long-term Plan.

Whether the policy will adequately consider and respond to the complexity of Auckland’s culturally, economically and geographically diverse communities

The new approach has been designed to be responsive to local diversity and complexity. The policy provides a minimum level of prescription to ensure the programme is feasible to implement.

Local outcomes and priorities will provide critical direction to staff in assessing proposals.

Ensuring the process isn’t overly difficult or complex, preventing smaller groups from participating

Whether new requirements would be phased in and tailored to reduce the burden on existing partnerships.

The policy commits to match requirements to the scale, complexity and risk of each partnership proposal. The council must balance enabling communities with applying rigour to larger investments, and ensuring partners don’t take on more than they can manage. Staff can provide support, but this must be accounted for in costings.

The policy will guide decision-making on entering new facility partnerships. Existing partnerships will be gradually harmonised with the new policy over time. This will occur as existing arrangements end or come up for renewal, or earlier where there is a mutual desire and capacity to review the partnership

38.     Attachment A (section 3, part 1) identifies the specific changes local boards have proposed in more detail and how these have been (or will be) addressed.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

Additional efforts made to ensure policy is responsive to Māori

39.     Marae are a focal point for Māori social, economic, environmental and cultural development, and are identified in the Community Facilities Network Plan as potential facility partners.

40.     Staff undertook additional engagement with Māori, with a focus on marae, to ensure the new policy would be responsive to Māori. Findings were reported in June 2018 (ENV/2018/74).

41.     The new policy reflects these findings and commits the council to partnering with Māori in ways which align with the Treaty of Waitangi Principles, and reflect the distinct characteristics and requirements of marae. Other work is being done to address issues raised that were out of scope for this policy.

42.     Staff wrote to all marae in August 2018 to share the draft policy and offer a further opportunity to meet individually to discuss any concerns. No additional feedback was received.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

No dedicated budgets for facility partnerships, some new funding for sports facilities

43.     The Facility Partnerships Policy is not supported by a dedicated budget. New investment in facility partnerships will follow standard process depending on the scale of the facility partnership. Some will be met from existing regional and local budgets for facility development and operation.

44.     At the regional level, the council has allocated $120 million to the Sports and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund in the Long-term Plan 2018-2028.

45.     This fund is likely to support some sports and recreation facility partnerships. Funding for other types and scale of facility partnerships will follow standard business cases approval and funding decisions through the Long-term and Annual Plans.

46.     At the local level, legacy facility partnerships budgets were aggregated and redistributed as locally driven initiatives (LDI) capex through the Long-term Plan 2012-2022. Local boards can also allocate community leases and community grants to support facility partnerships, and the policy identifies these as an important part of the investment mix.

47.     Leases and local capital / operational grants tend to be oversubscribed. Few new properties are added to the community lease portfolio each year, and discretionary grants are not well-suited as a mechanism for ongoing partnership support.

Implementation from existing budgets, with business case if new resource required

48.     Staff anticipate the policy can be implemented within existing baselines. Significant staff resource is already spent on supporting facility partnerships and providing related advice to decision-makers. Some efficiencies are expected in the medium term from the introduction of improved selection and management processes that will reduce staff time.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

Risk

Type

Level

Likelihood

Mitigation

Adoption of a new policy will create expectations – internally and externally – of additional budget for facility partnerships. 

 

Customers

Reputational

Moderate

Likely

Communications released following policy adoption will reference the funding and in-kind support currently available, and emphasise the policy is about improving our decision-making and partnering practice within existing baselines.

Not all facility partnership types require significant funding to deliver benefits.

The governing body can allocate additional funding for facility partnerships through the Long-term and Annual Plans.

There may be community concern about how the policy will affect existing partnerships, and its potential to negatively impact successful arrangements already in place.

Customers

Reputational

Low

Unlikely

The policy will guide decisions on new facility partnerships only, unless an existing partnership is already scheduled for review. Staff will communicate with current partners and local boards to explain any anticipated impacts on existing partnerships.

Where existing partnerships are to be reviewed, staff will ensure partners are adequately supported to prepare their case for continued (or increased) investment.

The transition to the new policy approach will be operationally complex, and require carefully coordinated planning to implement as intended.

Delivery of Commitments

Processes

 

Moderate

Possible

Cross-council implementation planning will ensure the transition to ‘business-as-usual’ is as smooth as possible.

Detailed guidance and business processes will be designed and tested with staff and partners during 2019 before widespread adoption. Other business improvement initiatives already in train will help develop and embed the new approach.

Additional resource may be required to operationalise key parts of the policy, particularly the lead relationship brokers and the provision of technical support for partnerships.

Delivery of Commitments

Financial

 

Moderate

Possible

The implementation planning phase will identify areas of increased workload for staff, and explore cost-neutral ways to mitigate or address this.

A business case will be brought to the committee if additional resource is required to deliver the policy as intended.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Facility Partnerships Policy - Summary of feedback and responses

175

b

Final Facility Partnerships Policy - December 2018

223

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Rebekah Forman - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 

Reserve Revocation - Council- owned lands adjoining 18 Edwin Freeman Place, Ranui and 18 Parrs Cross Road, Henderson

 

File No.: CP2018/22126

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To provide an update on the results of the notification of the proposal to revoke the reserve status of Auckland Council owned reserves adjoining 18 Edwin Freeman Place, Ranui and adjoining 18 Parrs Cross Road, Henderson.

2.       To seek approval to submit a request to the Minister of Conservation to uplift the reserve status for land adjoining 18 Edwin Freeman Place, Ranui and adjoining 18 Parrs Cross Road, Henderson.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

3.       The two Auckland Council owned reserves adjoining 18 Edwin Freeman Place, Ranui (Lot 95 DP 104330) and adjoining 18 Parrs Cross Road, Henderson (Lot 9 DP 71587) were approved for reserve status revocation and for disposal by the Finance and Performance Committee on 24 July 2018 (FIN/2018/113), subject to a satisfactory conclusion of any required statutory processes.

4.       By way background, the reserve adjoining 18 Parrs Cross Road, Henderson is a rectangular parcel of vacant land (grassed) covering approximately 656sq m. It was created on subdivision undertaken by its former owner in 1985 and was vested in the former Waitemata City Council as a road reserve pursuant to Section 306(4) LGA 1974.

5.       The reserve adjoining 18 Edwin Freeman Place, Ranui is a rectangular parcel of vacant land (grassed) covering approximately 583m2.  It was created via subdivision undertaken by its former owner in 1974 and was vested in the former Chairman, Councillors and Inhabitants of Waitemata County as a road reserve pursuant to the Counties Amendment Act 1961.

6.       As part of Auckland Council’s statutory obligations, Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) has undertaken iwi and public notification on the two properties.

7.       One submission was received for the land adjoining 18 Parrs Cross Road, Henderson. The submitter notified Panuku that there is concrete fill underneath the topsoil of the property and was concerned that any work to relocate the concrete debris would cause damage to her property. A copy of the objection is attached in Attachment A.

8.       No submissions were received for the land adjoining 18 Edwin Freeman Place, Ranui.

9.       Panuku now seeks a formal resolution to submit the request to the Minister of Conservation to revoke the reserve status of the two properties. 

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a)      agree to submit a request to the Minister of Conservation to revoke the reserve status for the local purpose (road) reserves adjoining 18 Edwin Freeman Place, Ranui (Lot 95 DP 104330) and adjoining 18 Parrs Cross Road, Henderson (Lot 9 DP 71587).

 

 

Horopaki / Context

10.     On 24 July 2018 the Finance and Performance Committee approved (FIN/2018/113):

·   the disposal of the land adjoining 18 Edwin Freeman Place, Ranui (Lot 95 DP 104330) and adjoining 18 Parrs Cross Rd, Henderson (Lot 9 DP 71587) (further called the “subject properties”).

·   the revocation of the reserve status of Auckland Council owned road reserves adjoining 18 Edwin Freeman Place, Ranui (Lot 95 DP 104330) and adjoining 18 Parrs Cross Rd, Henderson (Lot 9 DP 71587).

11.     As the subject properties are no longer required by Auckland Council for reserve purposes when assessed against Council’s open space acquisition and provision policies.  The Finance and Performance Committee approved the disposal and reserve revocation subject to a satisfactory conclusion of any required statutory processes.

12.     The public were notified of the proposal to revoke the reserve status of the subject properties pursuant to S24 Reserves Act 1977. Iwi were notified pursuant to Section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987.

13.     The proposal to revoke the reserve status of the subject properties was publicly notified in the Western Leader and on the Auckland Council website on 4 October 2018. Copies of the public notifications are attached in Attachment B.

14.     Additionally, Panuku has notified the adjoining owners of the subject properties of the proposed revocation of reserve status as it considers the adjoining owners to be the most likely affected by the proposed revocation. An example of the letter sent to the adjoining owners is attached in Attachment C.

15.     The notification period ended on 8 November 2018.

16.     One submission was received.  Panuku is of the view that this concern relates to a future activity on the property and is not an objection to the revocation of the reserve status. A copy of the objection is attached in Attachment A.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

17.     Panuku recommends that the Environment and Community Committee request the Minister of Conservation to uplift the reserve status of the subject properties on the basis that they are not required for reserve purposes. The revocation of reserve status is required if the disposal process is to be completed.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

18.     The Henderson-Massey Local Board endorsed the proposed reserve revocation and disposal of the subject properties at its 20 March 2018 business meeting (HM/2018/25).

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

19.     Six Mana Whenua iwi authorities have been consulted over the proposed revocation of the reserve status. A summary of the list of iwi authorities consulted and their response can be found in Attachment D. No objections were received.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

20.     A plan change will be undertaken to change the open space zoning of the subject properties to an appropriate residential zoning in order to allow the highest and best value of the land to be realised.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

21.     If the reserve status of the properties is not revoked, it will not be possible to progress the disposal. The properties would remain in Auckland Council’s ownership and would incur ongoing maintenance costs and management as non- service properties.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

22.     If approval is obtained, Panuku will forward the Environmental and Committee resolution to the Department of Conservation together with the submissions received, requesting the Minister of Conservation to undertake the reserve status revocation pursuant to section 24(1) of the Reserves Act 1977.

23.     If the Minister of Conservation agrees to publish a Gazette Notice declaring the revocation of reserve status of the subject properties, Panuku will work with Councils Plans and Places team to undertake a change to the zoning of the properties from Open Space to the appropriate residential zoning and proceed with disposal of the subject properties.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Submission received

271

b

Public Notifications

273

c

Example letter to Adj Owner

277

d

Summary of of consulted iwi and responses received

279

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Adela Hadi - Technical Statutory Advisor

Authorisers

Leo Foley - Team Leader Property Asset Development

David Rankin - Chief Operating Officer, Panuku Development Auckland

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 

2018/2019 Regional Environmental and Natural Heritage Grant Programme allocation

 

File No.: CP2018/20700

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To approve grant recommendations for the 2018/2019 Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grant programme funding round.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       The Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grant is a contestable community grants programme designed to support the protection, restoration and enhancement of Auckland’s regionally significant natural heritage areas, as well as projects that encourage and support Aucklanders to adopt environmentally sustainable lifestyles.

3.       The programme focuses on supporting strategic regional initiatives that deliver on any of four outcome categories: sustainable living, conservation, healthy waters and kaitiakitanga (see Attachment A for the grant framework). The rationale for the allocation of funding to specific projects is outlined in Attachment B.

4.       The total budget available for the 2018/2019 Regional Environmental and Natural Heritage Grant programme funding round is $558,855. This includes $200,000 allocated from the natural environment targeted rate 2018/2019 quick win fund to support conservation project grants.

5.       The programme received 70 applications for the 2018/2019 funding round which requested a total of $2,786,199. These included multi-year applications requesting funding for up to three years. One application was withdrawn by the applicant during the assessment process.

6.       Following the assessment of applications, it is recommended that 47 applications are supported with a total of $558,850 in grants from the programme’s budget. Recommended grants range from $1,850 to $30,000 in value, with an average grant of $11,890.

7.       Recommendations also include eight multi-year projects with $64,500 to be allocated to projects from the 2019/2020 grants budget and $52,000 to be allocated from the 2020/2021 grants budget. These multi-year projects bring the total value to $675,350 of applications recommended for support through this funding round.

8.       It is recommended that a further 22 applications be declined. Projects are recommended to be declined for a variety of reasons, in most instances due to their relatively lower contribution towards regionally significant outcomes. Due to budget limitations, a number of high quality applications are also recommended to be partially funded (see further detail in Attachment B).

9.       Six applications contribute towards achieving Māori outcomes, specifically around kaitiakitanga where mana whenua are empowered and recognised in their customary kaitiaki role.

10.     Once approved, applicants will be notified of funding decisions as soon as practicable. Successful grant recipients will have 12 months to three years to complete their projects, depending on the grant term. At the end of this term recipients will be required to meet project accountability requirements detailing how funding has been used and what has been achieved through their project.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a)      approve the grant allocations for the 2018/2019 Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grant programme funding round, as listed below and in Attachment B of the agenda report:

Applicant

Project Title

Total amount recommended

Term

Te Matuku Bay Landcare Group

Environmental Weed Control - Te Matuku Scenic Reserve

$15,000

One year

Medlands Limited

Shakespeare Point Protection

$7,500
(2018/2019: $3,000; 2019/2020: $2,500; 2020/2021: $2,000)

Three years

Project Litefoot Trust

LiteClub - Auckland

$22,000

One year

Te Auaunga Friends of Oakley Creek Incorporated

Te Auaunga - Oakley Creek Restoration Project

$15,000

One year

Waiheke Conservation Collective - Predator free Waiheke
under the umbrella of Hauraki Gulf Conservation Trust

Waiheke mustelid control 2019 - 2020

$30,000

One year

Pest Free Kaipātiki Restoration Society Incorporated

Volunteer Initiatives Programme - Weed Control Contracting for Kaipātiki Restoration Network

$55,000
(2018/2019: $25,000; 2019/2020: $15,000; 2020/2021: $15,000)

Three years

Edith Tuhimata

Te Mahanihani Cultural Heritage Trail - Nga Tohu Kaitiaki

$10,000

One year

Blocktree Limited

Carbon Click - Converting physical tree planting projects to digital assets

$20,000

One year

Ayrlies Garden and Wetlands Charitable Trust

Ayrlies Wetlands Operation Clean Water

$5,000

One year

Streamland Suffolks Limited

Protection and riparian planting northern stream and gully in 110-Paddock

$5,000

One year

Urban EcoLiving Charitable Trust

Tread Lightly Caravan and Tread Lightly Drain Game

$21,000

One year

Community Waitakere Charitable Trust

Orangihina Harbourview Predator Control

$30,000
(2018/2019: $10,000; 2019/2020: $10,000; 2020/2021: $10,000)

Three years

New Zealand Dance Advancement Trust

This Fragile Planet – a live and digital community “artivism” project

$18,000

One year

Earth Action Trust

Live Lightly!! Newcomers

$13,000

One year

Kaipātiki Project Incorporated

Enviro North Partners

$27,000
(2018/2019: $9,000; 2019/2020: $9,000; 2020/2021: $9,000)

Three years

Kaipātiki Project Incorporated

EcoFest North

$9,000

One year

Create Innovation Limited

E. coli incubator for water quality monitoring

$2,000

One year

Plastic Free Pohutukawa Coast
under the umbrella of Building Excellence Group

Plastic Free Pohutukawa Coast - Phase two

$1,850

One year

Eastern Bays Songbirds Project Incorporated

A partnership to nurture native birds in the Eastern Bays

$50,000
(2018/2019: $25,000; 2019/2020: $15,000; 2020/2021: $10,000)

Three year

The Waiheke Collective
under the umbrella of The Waiheke Resources Trust

Coordinator role for the Waiheke Collective

$15,000

One year

The Forest Bridge Trust

CatchIT Schools (primary and secondary) and CatchIT Communities

$25,000

One year

Glenfern Sanctuary Trust

Pateke Habitat Restoration

$14,000
(2018/2019: $10,000; 2019/2020: $4,000)

Two years

The Forest Bridge Trust

Fencing Hoteo Forest Remnants, Riparian Margins and Wetlands

$30,000

One year

NZ Native Forest Restoration Trust

Pest control and replacement of traps

$6,000

One year

Pest Free Kaipātiki Restoration Society Incorporated

Action on the land: Pest Free Kaipātiki Predator Blitz

$22,000
(2018/2019: $10,000; 2019/2020: $6,000; 2020/2021: $6,000)

Three years

Conservation Volunteers New Zealand

Ecological Enhancement of the Awaawaroa Wetland Reserve

$13,000

One year

The Windy Hill - Rosalie Bay Catchment Trust

Spark Me Up Phase four

$6,500

One year

Beyond the Fence
under the umbrella of Le Roys Bush and Little Shoal Bay Reserves Charitable Trust

Weed and pest control around Le Roys Bush - a halo project

$10,000

One year

Omiha Welfare and Recreation Society Incorporated

Rocky Bay Ratbusters

$4,000

One year

Waiheke Go Moth Plant group
under the umbrella of The Waiheke Resources Trust

Te Putiki o Kahu/Rangihoua Hill Ecological Restoration Project (Waiheke Island)

$13,000
(2018/2019: $10,000; 2019/2020: $3,000)

Two years

Megan Fitter
under the umbrella of
EcoMatters Environment Trust

Little Muddy Creeks Estuary Rehabilitation

$17,500

One year

Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Incorporated - Waitakere Branch

Improving the outcome for a wetland health indicator species

$5,500

One year

The Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron Incorporated

Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron Kawau Reforestation

$10,000

One year

Pest Free Kaipātiki Restoration Society Incorporated

Annual Kaipātiki Chew Card Campaign and Informative Signage Project

$20,000

One year

Microneer Limited

The Urban Rat Project

$4,600

One year

Muriwai Environmental Action Community Trust

Pest Free Muriwai

$5,000

One year

Friends of Okura Bush Incorporated

Weeding Contractor 2019

$10,000

One year

Maskell Trust

Kauri and Rata Protection Project

$10,000

One year

Rotary Club of Pakuranga Charitable Trust

The Combined Rotary Clubs of the Howick Ward Pest free Project

$10,000

One year

Kaipātiki Project Incorporated

Community Teaching Nursery

$15,000

One year

Davian Lorson

Day of Judgement - Pest plant educational Videos

$5,000

One year

Catherine Yeates

Bush conservation at 62B Westhead Road, Kohekohe

$4,300

One year

Jenny Christianson
under the umbrella of Kaipātiki Project Incorporated

Trial of Methodology of Non-chemical Weed control in Ecological Restoration

$10,000

One year

Motuihe Trust

Flora Species Diversity, Nursery, Planting, Weeding 2019-2021

$5,500

One year

Gecko NZ Trust

Mobile Rat Trap HQ

$15,000

One year

Protect Piha Heritage Society Incorporated

Pest free Piha

$10,000

One year

Celia and David Timothy Ruane

Schollum Road Native Regeneration and Significant Ecological Area Connection Project

$3,100

One year

 

 

$675,350

 

2018/2019: $558,850

 

2019/2020: $64,500;

 

2020/2021: $52,000

 

 

Horopaki / Context

Grant programme purpose and outcomes

11.     The Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grant programme supports the implementation of the Auckland Plan, Auckland Council’s Indigenous Biodiversity Strategy, the Regional Pest Management Plan, and the Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan. In particular, outcomes from these plans supported by this grant programme are:

·        the mauri of the natural environment is in optimum health

·        our natural heritage is valued by all Aucklanders

·        our natural resources are sustainably managed

·        our waterways, coastline, harbours, islands and marine areas are treasured

·        a high number and diverse range of Auckland’s indigenous species and ecosystems are conserved; there are no regional extinctions of indigenous species and a reduction in the number of threatened or ‘at risk’ species

·        mana whenua are empowered, enabled, respected and recognised in their customary kaitiaki role, and participate in the co-management of natural resources

·        Aucklanders adopt sustainable lifestyles, including reducing use of non-renewable resources and minimising waste

·        Auckland communities are involved in the stewardship of our biodiversity and other natural resources

·        Aucklanders help to address climate change through carbon sequestration, adaptive land management and better soil management.


 

 

Establishing the grant programme criteria and budget for the 2018/2019 financial year

12.     In July 2015, the Environmental Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee adopted the reviewed Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grants Programme Framework, which describes the fund criteria, exclusions, investment approach and timing of funding (resolution ENV/2015/18). This grant programme framework has been applied for the 2018/2019 funding round. Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grant projects need to meet at least one of the programme’s outcomes which are grouped under four categories:

·        sustainable living

·        conservation

·        healthy waters

·        kaitiakitanga.

The grant programme framework and the specifics of the fund criteria are attached to this report as Attachment A.

Grant funding available for the 2018/2019 financial year

13.     Auckland Council invests an annual budget of $488,710 into the Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grants fund. The budget available for the 2018/2019 funding round is $358,855. This is because a portion of this budget ($129,855) has already been committed to multi-year applications through the 2016/2017 and 2017/2018 funding rounds.

14.     Additional funding of $200,000 was allocated from the natural environment targeted rate quick win funding support budget to provide supplementary funding for conservation projects in 2018/2019. The additional funding is targeted towards conservation projects which aim to achieve biodiversity outcomes across the Auckland region.

Timing and promotion of the grant programme

15.     The Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grant programme has one annual funding round. In the 2018/2019 financial year, the fund opened on 16 July 2018 and closed on 31 August 2018. Applications were assessed by subject matter experts during September and October 2018.

16.     The grant was promoted through a number of existing processes and networks including Auckland Council’s website and social media sites, publications, hui, pest liaison and biodiversity groups, local board networks and emails to environmental stakeholders and partners. A series of workshop presentations were held across the region where applicants could be supported through the application process and request advice from council staff

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

How the grant applications were assessed

17.     Applications were assessed through a four-stage process as follows:

i.          Applications were assessed against grant programme eligibility criteria and allocated for merit assessment according to the outcomes of the fund, as shown below in Table 1.


 

 

Table 1: Categorisation of applications across Regional Environment and Natural Heritage grant outcomes

Outcome category

Number of applications

Sustainable living

14

Conservation

45

Healthy waters

10

Kaitiakitanga*

7

Withdrawn

1

*Applications that deliver on the kaitiakitanga category can also deliver under any of the other three categories, so the total numbers shown do not sum to 70.

ii.          Subject matter experts for each of the categories were allocated applications for assessment against the criteria shown below in Table 2.

Table 2: Regional Environment and Natural Heritage grant assessment criteria

Criteria

Weighting

Project impact

40

Connectivity

20

Applicant capacity

20

Māori outcomes

10

Value for money

10

Total

100

 

iii.         Māori outcomes were assessed by an internal subject matter expert in Te Ao Māori. The assessment evaluated to what extent the project empowered mana whenua as kaitiaki and the integration of Te Ao Māori within the project methodology and goals.

iv.        A panel of these subject matter experts considered all applications against the outcome areas and recommended grant allocations based on application assessment and alignment with grant programme outcomes.  Applications more closely aligned with programme outcomes were more likely to be funded, although other key criteria were also considered such as replicability of the project and ability for it to be scaled up across the region.

18.     The panel developed funding recommendations for the Committee’s consideration as described in Attachment B and summarised in the report recommendations.

Recommendations for allocating funding

19.     It is recommended that 47 applications are supported with grants from the Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grant programme budget. These recommendations include eight multi-year projects.

20.     If approved, the grant allocation will be:

·        $558,850 from the 2018/2019 grant fund

·        $64,500 from the 2019/2020 grant fund

·        $52,000 from the 2020/2021 grant fund

21.     While the Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grant Programme Framework provides for grants between $5,000 and $40,000 per annum, there is provision to award smaller grants for projects that meet the criteria for regional significance, but only require moderate support.

22.     Where grants of less than $5,000 are recommended this is due to either a moderate funding request by the applicant or moderate investment from the council required to maximise a project’s potential environmental outcomes. Recommended grants range in value from $1,850 to $30,000 in value, with an average grant of $11,890 for 2018/2019.

23.     For the 2018/2019 financial year $200,000 from the natural environment targeted rate quick win budget will be used to fund conservation projects applied for through the Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grant programme.

24.     Most successful applications were recommended for partial funding, taking into account value for money, project budgets, ability to scale project and access to other resources.  It is also recommended that a further 22 applications be declined. Projects are recommended to be declined for a variety of reasons, in most instances due to their relatively lower contribution towards regionally significant outcome (see further detail in Attachment B).

25.     Table 3 also shows the number and total value of applications received, declined and recommended for funding since 2016/2017.

Table 3: Summary of funding available and committed from 2016/2017 to 2018/2019

 

2016/2017

2017/2018

2018/2019

Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grant Budget

$461,810

$399,710

$358,855

Natural environment targeted rate quick win funding support budget

-

-

 

$200,000

Number of applications received

73

54

70

Total value of grants requested

(including multi-year requests)

$1,791,750

$1,610,708

$2,786,199

Number of applications recommended for funding

33 applications recommended for funding, 7 of them multi-year

36 declined

4 ineligible

24 applications recommended for funding, 4 of them multi-year

28 declined

2 ineligible

47 applications recommended for funding, 8 of them multi-year

22 declined

1 withdrawn

Value of grant allocation

Range: $1,000 to $35,000

Average grant: $14,500

Range: $3,000 to $40,000

Average grant: $16,654

Range: $1,850 to $30,000

Average grant: $11,890

 

26.     A high proportion of the projects recommended for funding are focused on achieving conservation outcomes. This reflects the focus of applications received in the funding round, as 65 per cent of applications received contribute to conservation outcomes.

27.     The additional funding available from the natural environment targeted rate for conservation projects has contributed to the high proportion of approved conservation projects. This has increased the percentage of approved conservation projects from to 50 per cent of the total number of approved projects.

28.     Of those application recommended for support six would contribute directly towards Māori outcomes, and eight would promote more sustainable lifestyles.

Table 4: Summary of Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grant allocations by outcome area

Outcome area

Number of applications

Amount recommended from Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grant  2018/2019

Amount allocated from natural environment targeted rate 2018/2019

Total

Sustainable living

8

$113,850

-

$113,850

Conservation *

35

$218,000

$200,000

$418,000

Healthy waters

4

$27,000

-

$27,000

Total

47

$358,850

 

$558,850

* Only conservation projects were funded from the natural environment targeted rate budget. Six projects funded from the Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grant budget, 15 projects funded from both the Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grant and natural environment targeted rate budgets, 14 projects funded from the natural environment targeted rate budget only.

 

29.     Eight applications are recommended for multi-year funding, these recommendations are based on high project ranking, representing a strong alignment with the grant objectives, high applicant capacity and best practice project design.

Table 5: Recommendation for multi-year funding allocation

Applicant

Project title

2018/2019

2019/2020

2020/2021

Medlands Limited

Shakespeare Point Protection

$3,000

$2,500

$2,000

Pest Free Kaipātiki Restoration Society Incorporated

Volunteer Initiatives Programme - Weed Control Contracting for Kaipātiki Restoration Network

$25,000

$15,000

$15,000

Community Waitakere Charitable Trust

Orangihina Harbourview Predator Control

$10,000

$10,000

$10,000

Kaipātiki Project Incorporated

Enviro North Partners

$9,000

$9,000

$9,000

Eastern Bays Songbirds Project Incorporated

A partnership to nurture native birds in the Eastern Bays

$20,000

$15,000

$10,000

Glenfern Sanctuary Trust

Pateke Habitat Restoration

$10,000

$4,000

 

Pest Free Kaipātiki Restoration Society Incorporated

Action on the land: Pest Free Kaipātiki Predator Blitz

$10,000

$6,000

$6,000

Waiheke Go Moth Plant group

Te Putiki o Kahu/Rangihoua Hill Ecological Restoration Project (Waiheke Island)

$10,000

$3,000

 

 

 

$97,000

$64,500

$52,000

Applicants are encouraged to match 50 per cent of the funding

30.     A 50 per cent matched funding (applicant contribution) approach is encouraged for the Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grant to ensure that the council grants continue to leverage private investment and funding from other providers. However, the grant programme framework includes provision for applicants to request grants of up to 100 per cent of the total project costs in exceptional circumstances.

31.     The total applicant contribution across all applications is $5,985,119. Table 6 shows the number of applications per grant programme outcome area, the amount requested, and the applicant contribution towards the projects.

Table 6: Funding requested across Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grant programme outcomes

Outcome area

Amount requested

Applicant contribution

Sustainable living

$650,057

$1,349,493

Conservation

$1,865,364

$3,860,934

Healthy waters

$270,778

$774,692

Total

$2,786,199

$5,985,119

 

32.     Following the assessment of project budgets and potential environmental outcomes, funding for applications recommended this year do not exceed more than 50 per cent of total project costs.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

33.     The Community Grants Policy provides for local boards to operate their own local grants programmes. Local boards may choose to fund local environmental projects and activities, some of which may complement the grants provided at regional level, or vice versa.

34.     Information on funding allocation and successful applicants will be provided to all relevant local boards, following the approval of grant recommendations by the Environment and Community Committee.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

35.     All grant programmes aim to respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to improving Māori wellbeing by providing grants to organisations delivering positive outcomes for Māori. Input from the Independent Māori Statutory Board has been sought into the development of the Regional Environment and Natural Heritage grants programme.

36.     One of the four regional outcomes categories relates specifically to Māori concepts and capacity. Seven applications were identified as contributing towards Māori concepts.

37.     Māori outcomes were assessed by an internal subject matter expert in Te Ao Māori. The assessment evaluated the extent the project empowered mana whenua as kaitiaki and the integration of Te Ao Māori within the project methodology and goals.

38.     Six applications recommended for funding were identified during the assessment process as contributing towards Māori outcomes. Of the applications recommended for support, the greatest contribution towards Māori outcomes was identified with Te Mahanihani Cultural Heritage Trail development. The project will support Ngāti te Ata efforts to enhance and develop te reo me ona tikanga (Māori language, customs and culture) through the protection of taonga which reflects Te Mahanihani as a site of cultural significance and rich natural heritage.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

39.     The budget allocation for this grant was confirmed through the Long-term Plan 2018-2028. The annual budget for this grant is $488,710. The funding recommendations presented in this report recommend full allocation of the 2018/2019 fund.  Multi-year funding recommendations partially commit budget from the 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 financial years.

40.     In May 2018, the Governing Body approved a natural environment targeted rate to support environmental initiatives. The rate will raise $311 million over the duration of the Long-term Plan 2018-2018 (resolution GB/2018/91).

41.     For the 2018/2019 financial year $200,000 from the natural environment targeted rate budget will be used to provide supplementary funding for conservation projects applied for through the Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grant programme.

42.     The table in Attachment B details the amounts recommended for funding from both the Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grant programme budget and the additional natural environment targeted rate funding.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

43.     The allocation of grants occurs within the guidelines and criteria of the Community Grants Policy, as well as the Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grants Programme Framework. The assessment process has identified a low risk associated with funding the recommended applications in this round.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

44.     Once approved, applicants will be notified of funding decisions as soon as practicable. Once applicants have been notified, successful grant recipients will have 12 months to three years to complete the proposed project work. At the end of this grant term recipients will be required to meet project accountability requirements detailing how funding has been used and what has been achieved through their project.

45.     Unsuccessful applicants will be issued with a decline letter as soon as practicable. These applicants will also be offered the opportunity to work with council staff on applications for future funding rounds or other opportunities for funding.


 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grants Programme Framework 2018-2019

293

b

Funding recommendations for Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Fund 2018/2019 round

299

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Adam  Abdeldayem - Senior Grants Advisor

Fran Hayton - Principal Grants Advsr & Incentives TL

Authoriser

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 


 


 


 


 



Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 



Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 

2018/2019 Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund and Section 17a waste fund review update

 

File No.: CP2018/20467

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To receive an update regarding allocation of funds to medium and large (over $5,000) grant applications for the 2018/2019 Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund September 2018 funding round.

2.       To receive an overview on the Section 17a Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund review being undertaken from December 2018 to March 2019.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

3.       The Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund is a contestable grants scheme established as a key initiative of Auckland Council’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018. The fund aims to support initiatives that will help achieve the vision, targets and strategic objectives of the waste plan, including waste minimisation and the diversion of waste from landfill in the Auckland region.

4.       The fund focuses on seed-funding new waste minimisation activities, and funding is allocated across four key outcome areas:

·    resource recovery initiatives and facilities

·    commercial waste

·    organic waste

·    community action and behaviour change.

5.       In the September 2018 funding round:

·    $26,148 is available to distribute to small grants ($5,000 and under), with decision-making delegated to the General Manager Waste Solutions

·    $519,066 is available to distribute to medium and large grants (over $5,000), with decision-making delegated to the Environment and Community Committee.

6.       Ninety-three applications were received, requesting over $2.6 million in total. Twenty-one applications requested small grants, and 70 applications requested medium and large grants (of which seven were multi-year applications).

7.       All applications were checked for eligibility then assessed and scored by a panel of council staff with expertise in waste minimisation. Assessments were undertaken in line with the funding criteria, including strategic alignment, waste minimisation, community participation and/or benefit, value for money, and quality of proposal (see Attachment A – Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund Guidelines).

8.       It is recommended that 18 of the medium and large grant applications are supported with grants from the 2018/2019 Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund budget with a total value of $517,044. No multi-year applications have been recommended for this funding in this round for reasons outlined in this report. Any remaining budget will be carried forward for allocation in future funding rounds.

9.       A proposal to continue the council’s Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund was included as part of the consultation process for the draft Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018. This was approved in the plan in June 2018 (ENV/2017/185).

10.     As part of the requirements of Section 17a under the Local Government Act 2002 the cost-effectiveness of the current grants scheme is being reviewed to identify any opportunities for improvements and efficiencies. A brief overview of the intended process of this review is also provided in this report. An update on review outcomes will be provided to the committee in March 2019.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a)      receive an update regarding allocation of funds to medium and large (over $5,000) gran applications for the 2018/2019 Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund September 2018 funding round.

b)      note that allocations for the 2018/2019 Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund September 2018 funding round will be presented for decision in the confidential section of this meeting.

c)      note that in accordance with Section 17a of the Local Government Act 2002, an assessment of the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund will be undertaken to ensure cost-effectiveness. This review will be undertaken from December 2018 to March 2019.

 

 

Horopaki / Context

11.     The Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund was established to support waste minimisation initiatives using a portion of the funds allocated to Auckland Council from the national waste levy.  The fund is primarily intended to provide seed-funding to encourage/enable creative reuse and recovery, as well as generate economic opportunities.

12.     Half of the total revenue generated from the national waste levy (currently set at $10 per tonne) is allocated to territorial authorities on a population basis. This money must be spent on promoting or achieving waste minimisation as set out in local authorities’ waste management and minimisation plans.

13.     The Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 sets out the purpose of the fund, which is summarised as follows:

·    promote or achieve waste management and minimisation

·    reduce waste to landfill in accordance with the objectives of the plan

·    foster new ideas and encourage community participation in reducing waste to landfill.

14.     The fund aims to target priority waste streams, reduce harm to the environment and improve efficiency of resource use by supporting new initiatives which complement and enhance existing programmes or address gaps. Funding is allocated through four outcome areas:

·    resource recovery initiatives and facilities

·    commercial waste

·    organic waste

·    community action and behaviour change.

Table 1 below describes each outcome area in more detail.


 

Table 1: Outcome areas targeted through the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund

Outcome area

Background

Resource recovery initiatives and facilities

Development of a regional resource recovery network is a priority for Auckland’s long-term aim to achieve zero waste by 2040. The network will provide an infrastructure that supports maximum resource recovery as well as providing local business and employment opportunities. A specific focus is the development of community and business operated resource recovery facilities.

Commercial waste

Supporting business waste minimisation is a key initiative of the Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018. The long-term target of the waste plan is to reduce total waste to landfill by 30 per cent by 2027, and as commercial waste (waste not controlled by the council) makes up 83 per cent of all waste sent to landfill in Auckland, supporting business waste minimisation is a priority. The council is seeking ways to encourage development of innovative solutions for commercial waste, particularly construction and demolition waste (such as concrete, timber, plasterboard, and insulation materials).

Organic waste

Organic waste (food waste and green waste) makes up about 50 per cent (by weight) of domestic waste sent to landfill. As such, reducing organic waste is a priority for achieving Auckland’s zero waste goal. Auckland Council will be introducing a kerbside collection of organic waste for households in urban areas in 2021. Initiatives that complement this service or enable local composting will be eligible for funding. Projects could look at reducing domestic and commercial green waste to landfill like community gardens, which have composting or mulching practices, or innovative ways to process organic waste.

Community action and behaviour change

Fostering new ideas and encouraging community participation in reducing waste to landfill is a key direction of the waste plan and a priority in the lead up to introducing disposer pays charging for refuse across the region once the organic waste collection has been introduced. Building community capacity for waste minimisation will be important in ensuring all Aucklanders have access to the information, education and support they need to reduce the amount of waste they send to landfill. The aim is to create enduring change in community behaviour and attitudes towards waste.

Grant budget and funding amounts

15.     The fund has an annual budget of $500,000, with $450,000 allocated to medium and large projects in a single funding round, and $50,000 allocated to small grants across two funding rounds. If funds are not fully allocated in one year they are carried forward into the next funding round of the same size. Unspent allocations can also be returned to the budget if no longer required by the grant recipient.

Table 2: Sub-categories for allocating grant funding

Category

Grant range

Application period each financial year

Small projects

From $250 - $5,000

April and September

Medium projects

From $5001 - $25,000

September

Large and multi-year projects

$25,001 and over

September

 

16.     In September 2018, $70,214 of unallocated or returned funding from previous financial years was carried forward and added to the budget for the September 2018 funding round. Of this, $1148 is available for small grants, and the remaining $69,066 is available for medium and large grants. The total amount of funding available for distribution is $26,148 for small grants and $519,066 for the medium and large grants, as summarised in Table 2 above. The fund has a minimum threshold of $250, and a maximum threshold of $50,000 per year for a maximum of three years. Applications requesting funding of more than $50,000 in a single year period are considered on merit at the discretion of the council.

17.     Decision-making for recommendations of up to $5,000 is delegated to the General Manager Waste Solutions, with decision making for recommendations of over $5,000 delegated to the Environment and Community Committee.

Applicants are required to match 50 per cent of the funding

18.     A minimum 50 per cent contribution towards the project is required from the applicant. This can be demonstrated with additional funding from their own or other resources, or time-in-kind. Private investment and funding from other providers is encouraged and taken favourably.

Timing and promotion of the grant funding programme

19.     The fund is open for applications twice a year for the whole month of April and the whole month of September.

20.     The fund is promoted prior to each funding round opening, as well as during the funding round via several avenues, including the following:

·    local boards

·    internal council networks including the Waste Solutions, Sustainability Initiatives, Community Empowerment Unit and Grants teams

·    Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund contact database

·    media releases to newspapers and radio stations, including articles in Our Auckland

·    Facebook ads

·    digital screens in Auckland Council service centres, libraries and buildings.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

How the funding applications were assessed

21.     Applications were assessed through a three-stage process as follows:

i)    All funding applications were assessed for eligibility against the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund Guidelines, as outlined in Attachment A. 

ii)   Feedback was requested from local boards, subject matter experts and council staff on all eligible funding applications.

 


 

Table 3: An overview of feedback requested on Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund applications

Feedback requested from

Feedback requested on

Intention

Local Boards

·    All applications where the project site has been identified within a specific local board area

·    All applications where the project is intended to affect the entire Auckland region

·    To identify any issues or conflicts with local board priorities and the needs of the community within each local board area

·      To gain any local knowledge of the applicant group or organisation

Subject Matter Experts

·    Any applications that require subject matter input regarding the waste being targeted, processes being used, or organisation applying

·    To receive technical and expert input on subject matter, including the applicant, targeted waste stream/s, community, processes and legislative requirements

Resource Consents

·    All applications

·    To identify whether any resource consents may be triggered by the proposed project

Sustainable Schools

·    Any applications relating to educational institutions or child-based learning

·    To identify whether the applicant has been liaising with the Sustainable Schools Advisor allocated to their area

·    To help determine whether the project is using best practice methods, and those appropriate for the size, capacity and type of organisation

 

iii)   Applications were then assessed by a panel comprised of council subject matter experts, who scored each application against the assessment criteria, focusing on:

·        project’s strategic alignment with the waste plan

·        waste minimisation

·        community participation and/or benefit

·        value for investment

·        quality of proposal.

22.     Application assessment and ranking reflects how well the intended project outcomes align with fund priorities, and how the project implementation would have a positive contribution towards:

·    waste management and minimisation within the Auckland region

·    targeting priority waste streams

·    reducing harm to the environment

·    improving efficiency of resource use.

23.     An additional meeting with the panel members was held for moderation of the application assessments. The panel viewed final scores and agreed upon final funding recommendations for the September 2018 funding round.

Summary of applications received

24.     Ninety-three applications were received requesting over $2.6 million. Twenty-one were for small grants, and 72 for medium and large grants (of which seven were multi-year applications). Two large applications were withdrawn, including a multi-year application.

25.     Applications were received from a range of organisation types with the majority received from charitable organisations, school or educational institutions, social enterprises or businesses.

26.     There was a strong focus on projects that reduced commercial, organic, or construction and demolition waste.

27.     Applications were spread across all four priority outcome areas (resource recovery initiatives and facilities, commercial waste, organic waste, and community action and behaviour change).

28.     Grant requests ranged from $250 to $150,000 in value, with an average of $27,211 being requested.

29.     Four applications were accepted after the funding round closed, as the applicants has technical issues during submission. Two late applications were for small grants and two for medium grants.

Recommendations for allocating funding

30.     The funding recommendations included in this report have been developed in line with the fund guidelines, priorities and agreed funding principles.

31.     It is recommended that eighteen applications from the September 2018 funding round, totalling $517,044, are supported with medium to large grants from the 2018/2019 Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund budget.

32.     Applications which are recommended for funding scored highly against the assessment criteria, as well as showing:

·    capability of the applicant to deliver the project outcomes

·    budget feasibility, including applicant investment and funding requested

·    demonstration of financial and operational project sustainability

·    ability to scale or replicate the project

·    use of best practice methods

·    project continuance and benefit should partial funding be granted.

33.     Two applications requested special consideration to fund more than $50,000 in a single year, however neither are recommended for funding due to project ranking and insufficient funding remaining.

34.     Of all medium, large or multi-year applications received, 50 applications are recommended to be declined for reasons such as:

·    low contribution towards funding outcomes

·    not significantly meeting funding criteria

·    budget limitations.

35.     If these recommendations are approved, $2,022 will be carried forward from the medium to large grant funding pool to the next financial year and be available for allocation in 2019/2020.


 

 

36.     Nine applications for the small grant funding pool requesting up to $5,000 each were recommended for funding for a total of $25,539, with decision delegated to the General Manager Waste Solutions. Fourteen small applications for this funding pool were recommended to be declined, leaving $608 unallocated funding to be carried forward to the April 2019 funding round.

Overview of the Section 17a Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund value for money review

37.     In accordance with Section 17a of the Local Government Act 2002, an assessment of the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund is required to be undertaken. A proposal to continue the council’s Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund was included as part of the consultation process for the draft Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018. This was approved in the plan in June 2018. A further review will be undertaken to ensure cost-effectiveness, including an evaluation of the following:

·    fund aims and outcome areas in alignment with the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018

·    funding guidelines and criteria, including funding exclusions

·    scoring guidelines and weighting

·    investment approach including grant sizes, budgets and timing of funding rounds

·    administration of the fund, including forms and processes

·    impacts of the grants, including data collection and case study opportunities

·    opportunities for engagement and increasing uptake of the fund, including Māori.

38.     The review of the fund will be undertaken from December 2018 to March 2019. An update will be provided to the committee in March 2019.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

39.     Local boards have a strong interest in waste minimisation and play a key role in promoting the fund to their networks and communities.

40.     Local board members were asked to provide informal feedback on Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund applications from their area relating to their local knowledge of applicants and how well grant applications aligned with local board priorities.

41.     Local board feedback on applications was provided by nine boards and used to help determine final funding recommendations. The feedback was largely mixed with some boards requiring provision of further detail around the funding priorities and outcomes for the fund.

42.     Local boards will be informed of the results of the funding round and successful applications from their areas, following approval of funding recommendations by the Environment and Community Committee.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

43.     A guiding principle of the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund is to support waste minimisation projects which enable Māori, in their role as kaitiaki, to participate in co-management of resources and support sustainable development of Māori outcomes, leadership, community and partnerships.


 

 

44.     In this funding round, we have received one application from an organisation who has been identified as mana whenua or part of the Māori community. Seven organisations identified as mana whenua or part of the Māori community were approved for funding by the Environment and Community Committee in December 2017, with one additional application approved by the general manager waste solutions in April 2018. These projects are still in progress.

45.     Further work is needed to increase awareness and uptake of the fund by Māori. This will be an ongoing focus of the fund in 2019/2020, and further work will be undertaken on how best to do this, in consultation with council staff with knowledge in Te Ao Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

46.     The funding of the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund can be managed through existing budgets provided by the national waste levy. The 2018/2019 budget for medium to large grants is $519,066.

47.     The funding recommendations presented in this report recommended $517,044 be allocated in the September 2018 funding round, and $2,022 will be carried forward to the 2019/2020 financial year.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

48.     The allocation of grants occurs in accordance with the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund guidelines and grants scheme framework. A thorough assessment process, including fair and transparent decision making, ensures that funding the applications recommended for this round is low risk.

49.     The Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund further mitigates potential risk from awarding large amounts of funding by using a reimbursement process where recipients receive funding once project works have been undertaken and invoices or receipts have been provided to council. Upfront funding can be provided; however, an official and detailed request must be made by the grant recipient and is assessed on a case-by-case basis. There is also the requirement for project reporting to be provided.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

50.     Once recommendations are approved, applicants will be notified of funding decisions as soon as practicable.

51.     Successful applicants will be notified via letter. At the end of the grant term, recipients will be required to meet project accountability requirements, detailing how funding has been used and what their project has achieved.

52.     Unsuccessful applicants will receive a decline letter. These applicants will also be offered a written evaluation on request, and the opportunity to work with council staff for advice or on applications for future funding rounds.

53.     A full review of the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund will be undertaken, with an update on outcomes provided to the Environment and Community Committee with the Section 17a review report in March 2019.


 

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund Guidelines

335

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Helen McCabe – Senior Waste Planning Specialist

Parul Sood, Programme Director Waste Solutions

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 

Summary of Environment and Community Committee information - updates, memos and briefings - 4 December 2018

 

File No.: CP2018/21816

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To note progress on the forward work programme (Attachment A)

2.       To provide a public record of memos, workshop or briefing papers that have been distributed for the committee’s information since 13 November 2018.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

3.       This is regular information-only report which aims to provide public visibility of information circulated to committee members via memo or other means, where no decisions are required.

4.       The following papers/memos were circulated to members:

·    20181120_Memo re: Tripartite Economic Alliance

·    20181121_Memo re: Leaseholders with gambling machines

·    20181122_Update on Waitakere Ranges and Kauri Dieback

·    20181123_Update 2 on Waitakere Ranges and Kauri Dieback

·    20181126_Memo re: Stats NZ Submission documents

Note that staff will not be present to answer questions about the items referred to in this summary. Committee members should direct any questions to the authors.

5.       This document can be found on the Auckland Council website, at the following link: http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

at the top of the page, select meeting “Environment and Community Committee” from the drop-down tab and click ‘View’;

under ‘Attachments’, select either the HTML or PDF version of the document entitled ‘Extra Attachments”.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a)      receive the summary of the Environment and Community Committee information report – 4 December 2018.

 


 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Environment and Community Committee - forward work programme

347

b

20181120_Memo re: Tripartite Economic Alliance (Under Separate Cover)

 

c

20181121_ Memo re:Leaseholders with gambling machines (Under Separate Cover)

 

d

20181122_Update on Waitakere Ranges and Kauri Dieback (Under Separate Cover)

 

e

20181123_Update 2 on Waitakere Ranges and Kauri Dieback (Under Separate Cover)

 

f

20181126_Memo re:Stats NZ submissions documents (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Maea Petherick - Senior Governance Advisor

Authoriser

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Environment and Community Committee

04 December 2018

 

 

 

Komiti Taiao a Hapori Hoki /

ENVIRONMENT AND COMMUNITY COMMITTEE FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME 2018

This committee deals with strategy and policy decision-making that relates to the environmental, social, economic and cultural activities of Auckland as well as matters that are not the responsibility of another committee or the Governing Body

 

 

 

Committee Priorities:

1.   Clearly demonstrate that Auckland is making progress with climate change adaptation and mitigation and taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

2.   Enable green growth with a focus on improved water quality, pest eradication and ecological restoration

3.   Strengthen communities and enable Aucklanders to be active and connected

4.   Make measurable progress towards the social and community aspects of housing all Aucklanders in secure, healthy homes they can afford

5.   Grow skills and a local workforce to support economic growth in Auckland

 

 

The work of the committee will:

 

·    Deliver on the outcomes in the Auckland Plan

·    Be focused on initiatives that have a high impact

·    Meet the Council’s statutory obligations, including funding allocation decisions

·    Increase the public’s trust and confidence in the organisation.

Area of work

Reason for work

Decision or direction

Expected timeframes

Quarter (month if known)

 

Edited 6 November 2018

Jan-Mar 2019

12 Feb

12 March

Apr-Jun 2019

9 April

14 May

11 June

Jul-Sep 2019

9 July

13 Aug

10 Sept

Oct-Dec 2018

16 Oct

13 Nov

4 Dec

 

Strategic approach to Climate Change

 

To demonstrate that Auckland is making progress with climate change adaptation and mitigation and taking action to reduce emissions.

Strategic direction will be provided in the coming months.

Progress to date:

A summary of activities to prepare for climate change was given in the presentation on 8/8/17 meeting.

Report was considered on 20/2/18, resolution ENV/2018/11 

Dec 18 – approval for consultation

Feb – Mar 19 -  targeted public engagement

Apr 19 – feedback presented to elected members

Jun 19 – final strategy for adoption

 

 

 

 

Q2

(Dec)

 

Low carbon living

 

To deliver on Low Carbon Auckland Plan commitments by the design and implementation of awareness raising and incentives programmes to reduce household, community, business and schools carbon emissions by approximately 50% of current levels.

Strategic direction and endorse programmes as part of the Low Carbon Auckland Plan implementation.

Progress to date:

Report was considered at 20/2/18 meeting. Res ENV/201811 report back in Dec18 for a decision. Independent Advisory Group (IAG) was approved. Chairs Planning and Env & Community Cttees, an IMSB member and the Mayor’s office to decide on the membership of the IAG. 

Q3

(Feb)

Q4

Q1

(Sept)

Q2

(Dec)

 

Low Carbon Auckland / Climate Change Mitigation

 

Four-yearly review of strategic action plan due in 2018; increased engagement with and commitments via C40 Cities membership; development of proactive policy agenda to central government emerging

Climate Plan Workshop:

Risks and vulnerabilities (June)

•     Committee workshop on risks and vulnerabilities

•     Communication strategy for broader public engagement

•     Local Board workshops

•     Mana whenua engagement (integrated throughout)

•     Stakeholder workshops

Prioritisation criteria and identified actions (Jul/Aug)

•     Cost benefit and total value analysis

•     Agree prioritisation criteria

•     Review all actions

•     Draft plan

•     Draft plan to committee (Dec 2018

•     Consultation (linking to other plans, approach tbc)

•     Updates to action plan

•     Adoption of updated plan by council (Proposed December 2018)

•     Final Adoption of Climate Plan  (Mar 09)

Decision and endorsement of strategic direction

Progress to date:

Report was considered at 20/2/18 meeting. Res ENV/201811 report back in Dec18 for a decision. Independent Advisory Group was approved.

Workshops scheduled: 4/7/18 and 26/09/18. An update was on 12/06/18 meeting agenda.

Report reapplication for C40 Cities membership was considered at 13/11/2018 meeting. Res ENV/2018/149 reapplication for membership was approved

Q3

(Mar)

Q4

Q1

Q2

(Dec)

 

Urban Forest Strategy

 

Strategic approach to delivering on the wider social, economic and environmental benefits of a growing urban forest in the context of rapid population growth and intensification.

 

Decision on strategic direction and endorsement of strategy.

Progress to date:

A workshop was held on 14/06/17. Report was considered on 12/09/17 ENV/2017/116 a full draft of the strategy was considered 20/02/18, res ENV/2018/12 with a report back on the results of the LIDAR and an implementation plan on costs and benefits in Aug 2018. An update was included in the 14 Aug agenda regarding several workstreams covered by the 18 high level implementation actions. A report on a full progress on implementing the strategy will be in August 2019. 

Q3

Q4

Q1

(Aug19)

Q2

 

Allocation of the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund

 

Decision making over medium and large funds from the Waste Minimisation and Innovation fund in line with the fund’s adopted policy. Funds to contribute towards council’s aspirational goal of zero waste to landfill by 2040.

Decision on the annual allocation of the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund for the 2018-2019 financial year.

Progress to date:
Decision: Approval of allocation of September 2016  funding round Resolution ENV/2016/19 Item C5. Approval of grants in Dec 17

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

 

Auckland’s water strategy

The health of Auckland’s waters is a critical issue. Both freshwater and marine environments in Auckland are under pressure from historic under-investment, climate change and rapid growth. The draft Auckland Plan 2050 identifies the need to proactively adapt to a changing water future and develop long-term solutions.

Decision and strategic direction and priorities as part of the Auckland Plan.

Consider the development of an Auckland’s waters strategy to be adopted for consultation December 2018.

Progress to date:

A report was considered on 12/06/18 to approve the proposed scope, timeframe and budget for the development of the strategy. Res ENV/2018/78

Key milestones:

·    June 2018 – develop a strategic summary of water related outcomes, identify integrated water outcomes,

·    July-Oct 2018 – high level regional options are developed and assessed for the five draft themes – consultation with mana whenua 

 

Q4

(Jun)

 

Q2

(Dec)

 

Regional Pest Management Plan review

 

Statutory obligations under the Biosecurity Act to control weeds and animal pests.

To ensure that the plan is consistent with the national policy direction and up to date.

 

Decision and strategic direction on weed and plants that will be subject to statutory controls.

Consider submissions received on the draft plan in mid 2018 and adopt the final plan by December 2018.

Progress to date:

Decision: Agreed to the inconsistencies in ACT at the 14 Feb 2017 ENV/2017/7 Item 12

Workshops held on 4/04/17, 3/05/17 and 27/09/17

Draft plan was approved for consultation in Nov 2017

Funding for implementation of the proposed RPMP through LTP.

A memo was distributed and is attached to the July agenda.

Key milestones:

·    workshops with local boards on public feedback – September - October 2018

·    workshops with local boards on public feedback – September - October 2018

·    engagement with mana whenua – September – October 2018

·    workshop with Environment and Community Committee – October – November 2018

·    formal feedback from local boards at business meetings – October – November 2018

·    approval of final plan by Environment and Community Committee – March 2019

Q3

(Mar)

Q4

Q1

(Jul)

Q2

(Nov)

 

Inter-regional marine pest pathway management plan

To ensure the plan is consistent with Auckland Council’s:

-      proposed Regional Pest Management Plan

-      current and future marine biosecurity programmes

-      response to SeaChange – Tai Timu Tai Pari Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan.

Decision on the development of the discussion document for an inter-regional marine pest pathway management plan for public consultation.

Progress to date:

A memo was distributed on 31/05/18 advising the committee on the Auckland Council’s participation in the development of a discussion document for an inter-regional marine pest pathway management plan, through the Top of the North Marine Biosecurity partnership.

 

 

 

Q2

(Nov/Dec)

 

Allocation of the Regional Natural Heritage Grant

Decision-making over regional environment fund as per the grants funding policy and fund guidelines

Decision on the annual allocation of the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund for the 2018-2019 financial year.

Progress to date

Allocation of the Regional Environmental Natural Heritage Grant for the 2017-2018 financial year was made on 6 Dec 2016_ENV/2016/11 Item 15

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

(Dec)

 

National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management

The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management is being implemented, with periodic reporting to council committee on progress, and responding to ongoing central government refinement of the framework for achieving water outcomes.

 

In December 2018 further decisions will be sought under the national policy statement, including:

·    approve final targets for swim-ability of major rivers in the Auckland region

·    approve the updated Progressive Implementation Plan for the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management

 

Progress to date:

Council submission was approved on Central Govt. Clean Water Consultation 2017 process: Minutes of 4 April ENV/2017/54 Item 12. Follow up is required for resolution b) – a workshop held on 14 June. A supplementary submission on the Clean Water Consultation package was made on 25 May 2017, Item 14 13/06/17

Decision ENV/2018/14 on engagement approach for consultation on the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management in Feb 2018.

A report was considered on 26/6/18 : Res ENV/2018/78

·    June 2018: develop strategy

·    July to Oct 2018 – High level regional options are developed and assessed for the five draft themes in consultation with mana whenua, local boards and key stakeholders.

·    Dec 2018- Draft Auckland's waters strategy presented to Environment and Community Committee for approval for release for public consultation

·    Feb to Apr 2019 - Targeted public engagement on the draft Auckland's waters strategy in February to March 2019.

·    Apr 2019 - Feedback analysed and presented to elected members in April 2019

·    Jun 2019 - Final strategy presented to Environment and Community Committee for adoption

 

 

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

(Dec)

 

Food Policy Alliance

To consider food policy alliance

Decision on food policy alliance

Q3

(Mar)

TBC

 

Q2

 

Auckland Growing Greener

Statutory obligations under the Resource Management Act, Biosecurity Act and Local Government Act.

Consideration of items to give effect to the adopted commitment of Auckland Council to grow greener.

Strategic direction and oversight into council’s role to improve the natural environment, and to endorse proposed incentives.

This may include endorsing:

·    a framework to ensure planning and growth decisions are underpinned by relevant environmental data

·    proposed incentives for green growth

·    recommendations arising from a current state statutory obligations review.

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

 

Hunua Aerial 1080 Operation

Provide information on outcomes of the Hunua 1080 aerial pest control operation

To note outcomes of the Hunua 1080 aerial pest control operation.

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

(Nov)

 

Parks, Sports and Recreation

 

Sport and Rec Strategic Partnership Grant to Aktive Auck Sports Rec

Approval of $552,000 strategic partnership grant to Aktive Auck & Sport to deliver on agreed priority initiatives.

2019 reporting schedule:

·    January 2019  -  Interim report from 1 July – 31 December 2018

·    June 2019  -  confirm 2019/20 priorities, outcomes and measures

·    July 2019 – Annual report from 1 January 2019 – 30 June 2019

·    September 2019  -  Audited Financial Statements from 1 July 2018 – 30 June 2019

To approve the $552,000 strategic partnership grant to Aktive Auckland Sport & Recreation for 2017/2018

Progress to date:

Report was considered 5/12/17 Resolution ENV/2017/186 – report back against KPI every six months. 

A report was considered on 10 July 2018 to approve the strategic partnership grant of $552,000 per annum for a three-year term (2018-2021) Res ENV/2018/90

A funding agreement will be prepared for Aktive that ensures clear accountability and KPIs for each of the four geographical areas (North, West, Central and Southern) for the investment. (TBA)

 

 

 

 

 

Te Motu a Hiaroa (Puketutu Island)

Status update on the Te Motu a Hiaroa Governance Trust 

To note further update on progress of the governance trust.

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

(Oct/Nov)

 

Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan

Status report on implementation plan

Direction on future options for sport and recreation.

Q3

 

Q1

Q2

(Nov)

 

Sports Investment Plan

Council’s strategic approach to outcomes, priorities and investment in sports

Decision on issues papers

Draft Plan approval

Finalise and adopt investment plan – approval of guidelines

Progress to date:

Evaluation of current sports facilities investments and proposed changes was adopted on 14 March, resolution ENV/2017/39  Item 13 with the final draft investment plan to be adopted prior to consultation.

An outcome measurement tool to support the Sports Facilities Investment Plan was considered and agreed at the 4 April 2017 meeting. Resolution ENV/2017/50 Item 9 The findings of the pilot will be reported in mid-2019 seeking a decision on the roll-out model. 

 

Q3

Q4

(2019)

 

Q1

Q2

(Nov)

 

Golf Investment Plan

Council’s strategic approach to outcomes, priorities and investment in golf.

Decision on issues papers

Draft Plan approval

Finalise and adopt investment plan

 

Progress to date:

A workshop was held on 12 Sept and information is available on OurAuckland.

Q3

 

Q4

Q1

Q2

(Dec)

 

Indoor Courts

Strategic business case for indoor courts investment

Decision on investment approach

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

(Nov)

 

Western Springs Community School Partnership

Improve Community Access to school facilities

Decision on Business and Investment in indoor court facility at Western Springs  

Progress to date:

The report was considered in May. Resolution ENV/2017/71 A business case will be prepared to outline the opportunity to fully invest in the indoor court development and can consider as part of the LTP 2018-2028.

 

Q3

Q4

(May)

Q1

Q2

 

Growth Programme

Update on proposed growth funding allocation for 2018-2020

 

Decision on growth funding allocation

 

 

Q1

 

 

Regional Sport and Recreation grants programme  2018/2020

Review of previous grants allocation and recommendation for next round

Decision on sport and recreation grants programme objectives and approach

Progress to date:

Approved on 12 Sept the 2018/2019 grants programme to proceed in accordance with the Community Grants Policy suggested outcomes and assessment matrix. Applications open 30/10/17 close 8/12/17 ENV/2017/119 Workshop in April 2018. Report was considered on 8/5/18 and resolved ENV/2018/57 .

Approved applications for 2019/2020 funding round on 25/1/2019 and close on 8/3/19 for allocation from July 2019.

Q3

Q4

(May)

Q1

(Sep)

 

 

Review of the Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012: TOR

The review will assess the efficacy of the guidelines in for the council to deliver the best possible outcomes for Auckland through community leases

Decision on the terms of reference for the review of the Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012

Progress to date:

The TOR was approved for the review to commence and will report back in May July 2018 subject to TLP.

An update memo was circulated in August 2017 in response to feedback from the July 2017 meeting. Joint workshop with local board chairs held 20/6/18. 

Report was considered November 2018 and resolved ENV/2018/150

 

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

(Nov)

 

Active Recreation Investment and Visitor Experience

Council’s strategic approach to outcome, priorities and investment for active walking, cycling, waterways and visitor experience on open space, parks and regional parks

Decision on scope and phasing

Q3

Q4

Q1

(Aug)

Q2

 

Takaro – Investing in Play discussion document

Development  of a play investment plan

Decision on approval for public release

Progress to date:

Approved on 16/05/17 for public release the discussion document and will report to E&C for approval in late 2017

Takaro was approved for release on 20 Feb 2018

A report back by August 2018 for approval to initiate public consultation 

Q3

(Feb)

 

Q1

(Oct)

Q2

 

 

Regional Parks Management Plan 2010 – variation to incorporate land at Piha into the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park

To approve variation to incorporate land purchased at Piha to be known as Taitomo Special Management Zone as part of the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park

Decision on approval to a variation

Progress to date:

Approved on 20/2/2018 Res ENV/2018/15    report

Manager, Regional Parks, will prepare an integrated vegetation management and fire–risk reduction plan in consultation with the local community and report back on the resourcing needs for its effective implementation.

 

 

Q1

(tbc)

 

 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

 

The Southern Initiative (TSI)

Provide an update on the TSI approach, priorities and achievements.

Strategic direction of the TSI approach to social and community innovation in south Auckland

 

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

 

Global Engagement Strategy

Provide an update and direction of Auckland Council’s global engagement strategy and priorities. It has been three years since a new strategic direction was introduced, progress on this strategy will presented.

Funded

Strategic direction of Auckland Council’s global engagement strategy and priorities

Progress to date:

Monthly global engagement updates are published on each agenda

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

 

Options to expand revenue streams for sport facilities investment

Provide strategic direction to expand revenue streams to fund future sports facilities investment in the draft Sports Facilities Investment Plan

strategic direction to expand revenue streams to fund future sports facilities investment in the draft Sports Facilities Investment Plan

Progress to date:

A report was considered in Aug. Res ENV/2017/121

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

 

SOCIAL, COMMUNITY, CULTURAL INFRASTRUCTURE

 

Community Facilities Network Plan

Update on progress and report back on strategic business case for central west.

Decision on indicative business case for central west

Progress to date:

A progress report was considered on 14 March. Resolution ENV/2017/36 Item 11 to report back on an indicative business case for investment in the central-west area.

 

Q3

(Mar)

Q4